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.
A visit to that link is very revealing. Apparently there are some Christians or Christian beliefs in the OPC (just not any that have shown up on FR). Most revealing, about the OPCers who frequent these threads, is the following Q & A exchange:
So, it appears that you are out of Communion even with your own Church. Care to comment? Q: Is there a specific reason as to why we seem to look down upon Roman Catholics more than other religions? They are Christians after all. A lot of my friends are Catholic and they seem like nice people. We even share many of the same beliefs. So why do we "bash" them?
A: Blah, blah, blah...If by "look down" you mean deride, belittle, or mock, any who do such are wrong.
So it appears that you are out of communion even with your own church. Care to comment?
Do you reject what those verses state?
Reading comprehension doesn't seem to be one of your strengths, here is what I actually wrote:
Do you belong to one of these strange cults which rejects Jesus Christ and chooses instead to worship St. Paul? Sts. Peter and Paul both wrote about this.
Based on the Scripture you cited what exactly does the non-Christian not do?
I have no idea what goes on at these Satanic cult gatherings.
And that has what to do with the gospel?
Do you know what the gospel Jesus preached was?
I believe first they nominate a candidate for presidency who promises hope and change.
Did it escape your notice that EVERY WORD in EVERY BIBLE VERSE I posted in 1868 were the actual, direct Words of Jesus Christ? Not the words of Saints Peter or Paul or James or anyone else, this is what the Lord ACTUALLY SAID. I apologize if this conflicts with whatever doctrines your church teaches, but it is the truth.
You honestly ask that question?? See my answer to Dr. E. as to what good news Jesus preached.
You do get that Christianity is about the person of Jesus Christ, right? It is the personal nature of the faith that so offended Greeks and Jews. For St. Paul did not write “we preach what Christ wrote but “We preach Christ crucified...” The very fact that what a person (yes I know Christ is God) did with His body is what saves us scandalized the world as it still does today.
You can not seperate the humanity of Christ from the divinity of Christ. You can not separate the Gospel from the person of Christ. He is the Word made flesh.
So the Good news is the same old bad news recycled?
The problem is those scriptures are being read without spiritual understanding and out of context .
1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.None of them being saved by the law or works my friend.. If the method of salvation remained the law and works..why did Christ bither to come??
Jesus preached the gospel.. what do you think he was telling people ..
Sorry about my lack of strength in reading comprehension.
You quoted me about how I saw Romanists as believing the gospel was a set of books and then you responded with something about strange cults that worship Paul and that Paul and Peter wrote about this. So were you referring to my point about a set of books or how Paul and Peter wrote about those in strange cults that worshiped Paul?
Call me a Eunuch- but how am I to understand those Scriptures as you understand them unless you explain them to me?
First to be pleasing to God any work of love we do must arise out of His grace. We believe works and faith both come from grace and the merit for them is due to God alone. They are a way of giving evidence of our faith in the love of Christ for us and for others.
We know Saint Paul would not reject what Christ said so what do you believe those verses mean? Or are those verses meant to trick us into doing good works and see how let’s themselves be condemned by such action?
Most communities offer classes for free.
You quoted me about how I saw Romanists as believing the gospel was a set of books and then you responded with something about strange cults that worship Paul and that Paul and Peter wrote about this. So were you referring to my point about a set of books or how Paul and Peter wrote about those in strange cults that worshiped Paul?
The latter, let's look once more at what I wrote:
Do you belong to one of these strange cults which rejects Jesus Christ and chooses instead to worship St. Paul? Sts. Peter and Paul both wrote about this.
This is a PARAGRAPH, the sentence about what the Apostles Peter and Paul wrote was in reference to my question.
Call me a Eunuch
Why don't you leave your personal information out of it.
but how am I to understand those Scriptures as you understand them unless you explain them to me?
I would suggest that you find a Catholic Church and inquire there. We read from the Gospels at EVERY MASS, many churches that claim to be Christian seldom if ever read the Gospels. If you really don't want to go to a Catholic Church, that's fine, the Orthodox, Lutherans and Anglicans ALSO read from the Gospels at every liturgy.
I live in the country and I don't have access to any free reading comprehension services. Will you teach me?
This is a PARAGRAPH, the sentence about what the Apostles Peter and Paul wrote was in reference to my question.
Oftentimes I'll notice that when one writer quotes another writer he then goes on to make a commentary on the quotation and there will be a correspondence between the quote and the commentary. I guess not in this case. Anyway, can you show me where Paul and Peter talked about strange cults that worshiped Paul?
Why don't you leave your personal information out of it.
I thought it might be helpful for your response.
I would suggest that you find a Catholic Church and inquire there.
I gathered from your response that those verses were self-evident which is why you quoted them. If it were so simple to understand why can't you explain them instead of referring me to a Romanist Church?
don a burka and sandals and some liberal org will send a government car over to take you to the liberal college of your choice, and give you free medical and a welfare check. Then you can post online day and night
Wow. Blaming Catholicism for Hitler is like blaming Jesus for Judas... Yeah, that invalidates everything Jesus ever did or said...
I'm sure that every single non-Catholic Christian has been a paragon of virtue, right?
Keep it up, your christian charity very convincing...
lol
Thought by the last part of your remark that you were inferring that the seed was of God. You are correct, though when I think of seed, well you know...:)
Really? You should see the Mormon threads. I try not to participate often. The same accusations have been addressed ad nauseaum to the same people who make the same false statement again and again.. you get the idea. There are certain posters who do not share Team 1’s worldview that get dismissed as if they are non-existent or democrat. Very sad. How’s that for Christian witness?
Mostly it’s like passing that 10 car pile up on the highway... you know you shouldn’t look and you try not to but then you do.
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.