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.
I am a convert to the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC CHURCH. The Holy Spirit led me to the true church, the one that Christ Himself founded.Wow. The Church is blessed with you coming to enrich it. Thank you.
That is why I became a CATHOLIC.
And I thank God every single day for making me CATHOLIC.
What religion are you?
What is JAM???
Reaqd the last few words you wrote...you made my point.
Jesus doesn’t like His mom being dissed....anymore than you would like it if your mom was dissed. We’ll have this settled on Judgement Day, now won’t we?
Cronos, I have read and re-read what you have offered in this post and you have said it well.
First, I agree with you that there is a tiny minority here who “define themselves negatively by attacking the Church...”. Not only do they define themselves negatively, but it seems to be the focus of their Christian life.
And I also agree with you that these same people do act as if they were spokesmen for all Protestant groups/people. I know that isn’t true and I’m glad you have pointed that out.
I also agree that the relentless attempts to deny, degrade, and dilute Catholic beliefs simply isn’t working, but—rather-—is actually helping Catholics to appreciate, define and defend their Catholic Faith.
Thank you.
Question. What is OPC?
And yes I noticed that the same posters say the same things all the time and in such anger.
I clicked on some names and found that on their about page they have the screeds already in place so that they can do a cut and paste throughout a thread.
LOL
:-)
Hallelujah - Amen!
I didn’t say that Mary was sinless. Jesus is not contaminated with sin by mere contact with them.
Those last few words were working from the presumption of IF Mary were sinless.
I think I found OPC.
The Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Yes?
How is telling Scriptural truth about Mary dissing her?
How is objecting to stories being made up and told about her as truth, dissing her?
So? Or do you now recognize Luther as infallible when speaking on matters of faith and morals?
Luther didn't really fall that far from the Roman Catholic tree. He had many cultural hangovers, one of which was the very popular view of Mary as being sinless. Luther did get it right on Justification, the Will, Grace and the problems of the Indulgences. Its sort of like someone who was raised all of their life in an Evangelical Fundamental culture. Once enlightened by the Paraclete, their sanctification into the truth comes over time and they will drop the Free Will Theism, the Do-Do-Doism of works, and eventually, if God allows, they dump the Dispensationalism and other heresies despite a massive cultural influence to embrace Doomsday eschatology. In the meantime, though saved, they will often parrot much of the rhetoric they accumulated over the Time of Error until they are sanctified out of it. (Usually having an epiphany and leaving the cookie cutter Dens of Iniquity the American Religion Big Boxes represent are our versions of nailing the 95 Thesies to the Wittenburg door) Luther had a much longer road to travel and quite frankly, there was no fruit in going against a very popular opinion that Mary was a demigod.
Look here in these forums. It is quite clear that many who claim the Roman Catholic faith system are quite ignorant and misinformed about most biblical doctrines. When challenged on nearly any topic they will quickly run out of defenses and resort to playground bullying antics. I know it can be frustrating to us, but notice how vehemently they defend the undefendable in all things concerning Mary.
Also consider that Rome really doesn't have that much influence on most Westerners having to compete with Dancing With the Stars and their kid's soccer matches, and such those who we interact with here are likely a notch above the Christmas/Easter Catholics in their devotion to Roman Catholicism. Yet, look at the fight-to-the-death levels of defense that they will throw in this cult of Mary worship. Now try to understand what Luther had to go up against.
He very well may have believed all that he wrote, ironically blinded in a way for his own protection and effectiveness, for surely going against the cultural grain would have lost much, if not all, of any support he had, and we would only know of Luther as yet another guy who was strangled and burned at the stake rather than the Father of the Protestant Reformation.
And the God Who can leave a closed tomb or enter a closed room would have no trouble leaving Mary’s womb eschewing the usual deliver method.. One of the Gospels relates the tomb story as the Angel rolled away the stone for the approaching women who were discussing how they would get into the tomb because of the large sealing stone. Jesus was already ‘out’ of there. But thank you for the BTTT.
The Church teaching is that Christ's sacrifice is what won us our Salvation. Church teaching is that His sacrifice is super-sufficient for our salvation.And YOU somehow twist that to say
Mary was the tool, the ark for holding God. This ark had to be purified, pure, clean, filled with grace to be able to bear God.
Just as the Ark of the First Covenant was so powerful that even priests who were uncleansed and men who aimed to prevent it from falling could get filled by one touch, so even more so the Ark of the second, greater, covenant had to be pure, filled utterly with grace.
All for God, all by God -- Mary did NOT save herself, she needed salvation and got that from her God, her Son, her Savior. Jesus saved Mary, He was her savior. He saved her, protected her from sin.
He would have been *tainted* by her original sinWhereever did you get THAT from my post?
He is not the patron saint of sailors, He is patron saint of Bakers and Pawnbrokers.
But Sailors have long traditions/history with him because he has come to their add over the years look up the terms “Star of Nicholas” and “May St. Nicholas hold the tiller”. If was not I that made these terms it was the acts of others you can judge their judgment as you see fit I know where I stand.
The Church teaching is that Christ's sacrifice is what won us our Salvation. Church teaching is that His sacrifice is super-sufficient for our salvation.And YOU somehow twist that to say
Mary was the tool, the ark for holding God. This ark had to be purified, pure, clean, filled with grace to be able to bear God.
Just as the Ark of the First Covenant was so powerful that even priests who were uncleansed and men who aimed to prevent it from falling could get filled by one touch, so even more so the Ark of the second, greater, covenant had to be pure, filled utterly with grace.
All for God, all by God -- Mary did NOT save herself, she needed salvation and got that from her God, her Son, her Savior. Jesus saved Mary, He was her savior. He saved her, protected her from sin.
He would have been *tainted* by her original sinWhereever did you get THAT from my post?
Sin doesn't rub off on people. It's not contagious with physical contact.
Have we somehow forgotten that the sin nature comes through the seed of the man? Because Mary inherited the sin of Adam through her biological father, Mary could have never sinned or she could have been the most vilest of sinners (as long as she remained a virgin - for the sake of the prophecy) and it would have made no difference since she was also under the Curse.
The Church teaching is that Christ's sacrifice is what won us our Salvation. Church teaching is that His sacrifice is super-sufficient for our salvation.And YOU somehow twist that to say
Mary was the tool, the ark for holding God. This ark had to be purified, pure, clean, filled with grace to be able to bear God.
Just as the Ark of the First Covenant was so powerful that even priests who were uncleansed and men who aimed to prevent it from falling could get filled by one touch, so even more so the Ark of the second, greater, covenant had to be pure, filled utterly with grace.
All for God, all by God -- Mary did NOT save herself, she needed salvation and got that from her God, her Son, her Savior. Jesus saved Mary, He was her savior. He saved her, protected her from sin.
He would have been *tainted* by her original sinWhereever did you get THAT from my post?
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Scripture says that what we believe shouldn’t contradict scripture. Can you quote scripture for “sola scriptura”, the “trinity” and “sola fide”?
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.