Posted on 12/05/2010 6:14:57 PM PST by RnMomof7
............The Historical Evidence
The Roman Catholic Church claims that this doctrine, like all of their other distinctive doctrines, has the “unanimous consent of the Fathers” (contra unanimen consensum Patrum).[10] They argue that what they teach concerning the Immaculate Conception has been the historic belief of the Christian Church since the very beginning. As Ineffabilis Deus puts it,
The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God… has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin… and thus has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts.[11]
However, the student of church history will quickly discover that this is not the case. The earliest traces of this doctrine appear in the middle ages when Marian piety was at its bloom. Even at this time, however, the acceptance of the doctrine was far from universal. Both Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux rejected the immaculate conception. The Franciscans (who affirmed the doctrine) and the Dominicans (who denied it, and of whom Aquinas was one) argued bitterly over whether this doctrine should be accepted, with the result that the pope at the time had to rule that both options were acceptable and neither side could accuse the other of heresy (ironic that several centuries later, denying this doctrine now results in an anathema from Rome).
When we go further back to the days of the early church, however, the evidence becomes even more glaring. For example, the third century church father Origen of Alexandria taught in his treatise Against Celsus (3:62 and 4:40) that that the words of Genesis 3:16 applies to every woman without exception. He did not exempt Mary from this. As church historian and patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly points out,
Origen insisted that, like all human beings, she [Mary] needed redemption from her sins; in particular, he interpreted Simeon’s prophecy (Luke 2.35) that a sword would pierce her soul as confirming that she had been invaded with doubts when she saw her Son crucified.”[12]
Also, it must be noted that it has been often pointed out that Jesus’ rebuke of Mary in the wedding of Cana (John 2:1-12) demonstrates that she is in no wise perfect or sinless. Mark Shea scoffs at this idea that Mary is “sinfully pushing him [Jesus] to do theatrical wonders in John 2,” arguing that “there is no reason to think [this] is true.”[13] However, if we turn to the writings of the early church fathers, we see that this is precisely how they interpreted Mary’s actions and Jesus’ subsequent rebuke of her. In John Chrysostom’s twenty-first homily on the gospel of John (where he exegetes the wedding of Cana), he writes,
For where parents cause no impediment or hindrance in things belonging to God, it is our bounden duty to give way to them, and there is great danger in not doing so; but when they require anything unseasonably, and cause hindrance in any spiritual matter, it is unsafe to obey. And therefore He answered thus in this place, and again elsewhere “Who is My mother, and who are My brethren?” (Matt. xii.48), because they did not yet think rightly of Him; and she, because she had borne Him, claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct Him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshiped Him. This then was the reason why He answered as He did on that occasion… He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?” instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much more for the salvation of her soul, and for the doing good to the many, for which He took upon Him the flesh.[14]
Now why on earth would Jesus care for the salvation of Mary’s soul at this point in time if she was already “preventatively” saved through having been immaculately conceived, as was claimed earlier? That does not make any sense, whatsoever. Likewise, Theodoret of Cyrus agrees with John Chrysostom in saying that the Lord Jesus rebuked Mary during the wedding at Cana. In chapter two of his Dialogues, he writes,
If then He was made flesh, not by mutation, but by taking flesh, and both the former and the latter qualities are appropriate to Him as to God made flesh, as you said a moment ago, then the natures were not confounded, but remained unimpaired. And as long as we hold thus we shall perceive too the harmony of the Evangelists, for while the one proclaims the divine attributes of the one only begotten—the Lord Christ—the other sets forth His human qualities. So too Christ our Lord Himself teaches us, at one time calling Himself Son of God and at another Son of man: at one time He gives honour to His Mother as to her that gave Him birth [Luke 2:52]; at another He rebukes her as her Lord [John 2:4].[15] And then there is Augustine of Hippo, whom many Roman Catholic apologists attempt to appeal to for their belief in the immaculate conception. They like to quote a portion of chapter 42 of his treatise, On Nature and Grace, where Augustine states,
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.[16]
However, those who quote this passage miss the point of what Augustine is trying to communicate. He was trying to refute the Pelagian heretics (who were the ones who were claiming that Mary—among other biblical characters—were sinless, since they denied the depravity of man). The article explaining Augustine’s view of Mary on Allan Fitzgerald’s Augustine Through the Ages helps clear up misconceptions regarding this passage:
His [Augustine's] position must be understood in the context of the Pelagian controversy. Pelagius himself had already admitted that Mary, like the other just women of the Old testament, was spared from any sin. Augustine never concedes that Mary was sinless but prefers to dismiss the question… Since medieval times this passage [from Nature and Grace] has sometimes been invoked to ground Augustine’s presumed acceptance of the doctrine of the immaculate conception. It is clear nonetheless that, given the various theories regarding the transmission of original sin current in his time, Augustine in that passage would not have meant to imply Mary’s immunity from it.[17]
This same article then goes on to demonstrate that Augustine did in fact believe that Mary received the stain of original sin from her parents:
His understanding of concupiscence as an integral part of all marital relations made it difficult, if not impossible, to accept that she herself was conceived immaculately. He… specifies in [Contra Julianum opus imperfectum 5.15.52]… that the body of Mary “although it came from this [concupiscence], nevertheless did not transmit it for she did not conceive in this way.” Lastly, De Genesi ad litteram 10.18.32 asserts: “And what more undefiled than the womb of the Virgin, whose flesh, although it came from procreation tainted by sin, nevertheless did not conceive from that source.”[18]
As can be seen here, these and many other early church fathers[19] did not regard Mary as being sinless or immaculately conceived. It is quite clear that the annals of church history testify that Rome cannot claim that this belief is based upon the “unanimous consent of the fathers,” since the belief that Mary was sinless started out among Pelagian heretics during the fifth century and did not become an acceptable belief until at least the beginning of the middle ages.
Conclusion
As has been demonstrated here, neither scripture nor church history support the contention of the Roman Catholic Church that Mary was sinless by virtue of having been immaculately conceived. In fact, Rome did not even regard this as an essential part of the faith until the middle of the nineteenth century. This should cause readers to pause and question why on earth Rome would anathematize Christians for disbelieving in a doctrine that was absent from the early church (unless one wants to side with the fifth century Pelagians) and was considered even by Rome to be essential for salvation until a century and a half ago. Because Rome said so? But their reasons for accepting this doctrine in the first place are so demonstrably wrong. After all, they claim that this was held as divinely revealed from the very beginning, even though four and a half centuries’ worth of patristic literature proves otherwise. This ought to be enough to cast doubt not only on Rome’s claims regarding Mariology, but their claims to authority on matters of faith and morals in general.
And Augustine was perfect and error free, right?
“She is much more active than a lot of other saints.”
Doing what? and how is this known?
Again, this thread is flame baiting. It is a deliberate effort to circumvent the Admin Moderator locking the prior thread.
I still maintain that since Jesus was tempted in every way as we are and yet was without sin, he HAD to have had brothers and sisters.
There’s nothing like sibling rivalry to test the quality of one’s character.
Can you see it now????
Mary: James, why can’t you be more like Jesus? He always does what he’s told without talking back.
Or imagine the siblings setting Jesus up to try to get him in trouble with mom and dad.
Does he tattle or not?
Would they have not provoked him to fight? Propped a bucket of water over the door to dump on him when he opened it and stood back and laughed?
Life would have been so much easier with a perfect mother and no siblings to contend with.
Amen. I would never say otherwise. I can not imagine you or I saying that Him being fully human meant He had any sin within Him.
I meant that if being human automatically meant being a sinner one might mistakenly think Jesus too came under sin. Which would be major wrong.
Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin by the merits of Jesus Christ. He saved her. She needed a Savior. Jesus being God had no need for a Savior even in HIs incarnation.
In a word: “No”
“The Catholic Church herself admits that much of Mariology lacks scriptural support. Fine.”
Really I missed that update can you send me the official link where the Church did so?
>>“She is much more active than a lot of other saints.”<<
Lourdes, Guadalupe, Fatima, Zeitoun — she has stayed engaged.
And she is quite beloved in the Catholic church and those who bash those who love her are, quite frankly, pretty mean and petty people who have a narrow view of God and Jesus and what constitutes prayer and salvation.
Go for it RnMomof7, start throwing around the word, slander, we just booted another member who liked using the word ‘libel’ just a bit too much - Jim loves it when people start threatening legal action against his forum or its members...
We have to go to the scriptures, which unequivocally show that Mary was a sinner.
Many catholics have a strong inclination to follow the ancient worship of Ishtar/Semiramis, substituting Mary as a proxy.
All the titles that catholics ascribe to “Mary” are historically those of Ishtar. (Mother of God, Queen of Heaven, etc.)
.
“Mary was the most fortunate virgin to be blessed with being used to HELP bring forth the body. She did not remain a virgin after the birth of the Christ child (welding goggles on). She did NOT create more of God. That’s not possible.
The part she helped bring forth suffered and died. God is a Spirit, and cannot die.”
Does this mean that you don’t believe that Christ was both human and divine? Part of him died? Heresy.
God died on the cross for our sins. Remember we are talking about the Trinity. You cannot separate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They are one.
She is also beloved by the Orthodox.
>>Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin by the merits of Jesus Christ. He saved her. She needed a Savior. Jesus being God had no need for a Savior even in HIs incarnation.<<
Your words fall upon deaf ears. The bashers shall have their romp, since they both fear and envy the love of and from the Virgin Mary and, by extension, Catholics.
“I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.”12 Zwingli used Exodus 4:22 to defend the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity.
ALL have sinned and come short of God's glory.
Mary was a sinful human being, just like the rest of us,
and needed a Savior, just like the rest of us.
Jesus Shed Blood covered her sins, just as it covers ours.
Let’s stop with this nonsense of tearing the Body of Christ apart. The notion of dividing Christians one against the other is rooted in nothing but evil.
I found this at the Acton Institute Blog earlier today. It might be good for everyone to read it in full. I share an excerpt:
“Last night a band of hearty travelers braved the first snow of the season here in Grand Rapids (and the attendant slick and dangerous roads) to hear Dr. John H. Armstrong speak at the November/December Acton on Tap, “Ecumenism and the Threat of Ideology.” Dr. Armstrong is founder of ACT 3 and adjunct professor of evangelism at Wheaton College.
Armstrong spent some time discussing the thesis of his book, Your Church is Too Small: Why Unity in Christ’s Mission Is Vital to the Future of the Church. A recurring theme was the phrase coined by Timothy George, “ecumenism in the trenches,” which is sometimes how we describe what we do here at Acton. The basic point of Armstrong’s book is that Christians must be able to come together to work in concrete ways in order to be an effective and faithful witness to Jesus Christ in the culture and the world.
As Peter writes, we are to “Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us” (1 Peter 2:12 NIV). Undoubtedly this call to live “good lives” means showing love to other people, “especially to those who belong to the family of believers” (Galatians 6:10 NIV).”
Acton on Tap: Ecumenism and the Threat of Ideology
http://blog.acton.org/
And, of course, let’s not forget the last prayer of Jesus before He went to be with the Father:
20
“I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,
21
so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.
22
And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one,
23
I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me. (John 17)
May God grant us all HIS Holy Spirit to grow us in the gifts and fruits of that same Spirit. Amen
The Incarnation refers to the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary.
The Immaculate Conception refers to Mary without original sin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.