Was Mary Sinless?

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.

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.

My primary contention is that the canon of Scripture has remained unchanged, regardless of all the discussion, arguments, etc.

Well, it was more than that, but until it is infallibly define you cannot be sure it is indisputably right. And they must be exactly the same, and yet i often defend the basic early acceptance myself against Da Vinci code fables. But they foundational premise behind Rome's contention is the erroneous premise that she is exclusively the one true church and assuredly infallible interpreters, but which is based upon her foundational premise that her interpretation of Scripture and history in this regard is infallible, and that being the stewards of Scripture renders her such, by which logic the Jews were. Not

I hesitate to post a link, but will ..

That is a lengthy find for you, and he includes a link to Webster's response to Sippo on the subject, and i would have to go through it thoroughly to make a full response, but from what i read his premise is that "canonical does not necessarily mean all that is Scripture," that “the presumption that if it is not in the canon, it is not inspired Scripture,” which is problematic. It does seem evident that the term “scripture” did not then carry the strict meaning it later (and Biblically) came to denote, that of a separate class of books which are wholly inspired of God, versus writings that were overall considered sacred, but Matt1618 defines canonical as referring to books which were allowed to be read in the church, and renders apocryphal books as being Scripture because they were treated or regarded as such by some fathers, but which were excluded from being read in the church. Thus he has a church which refuses to declare the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27) in its liturgy, and defines a “canon” as not being inclusive of all Scripture, which is defined by its uses as such by some fathers, but who also regarded some books which Trent later rejected.

By his logic books which some fathers also highly regarded such as Didache, which was considered sacred text by at least two heads of the Catechetical School at Alexandria before the end of the fourth century, as well as the Shepherd of Hermas Prayer of Manasseh (the latter of which was in the Vulgate Trent) and others would also be Scripture (note also that the KJV apocrypha is slightly larger than the Roman Catholic one). And as Luther also quoted from books he rejected as apocryphal the they could be held as Scripture. And then there is the confusing and contentious issue of non-canonical Second Esdras/ (two by that name) also known as 3^rd (or Esdras A) or 4^th Esdras (as in the Vulgate) , also called Apocalypse of Ezra, and which some early Protestant groups liked and Rome makes use of in various liturgies. 4 Ezra was also often cited by the Fathers of the Church and the Ethiopian Church considers 4 Ezra to be canonical,

In addition, some of the books of the Pseudepigrapha were invoked by some church fathers, and found their way into other canons of various Eastern churches. And since Jude 1:14 evidently quotes from the Book of Enoch 1:9 then that would be Scripture, even though the latter also explains in section 7:1-4 (in a section of the Book of Enoch dated to about 250 B.C.B.) that the "giants" mentioned in Genesis 6:4 were 300 cubits (or about 450 feet), though i think i read an Egyptian mss makes it more like 40. (But the Flood came before an NBA scout got to them.) The apostle Paul even quoted truth uttered by a pagan prophet, but such does not sanction the whole source.

Matt1618 also states, “Even if one does not accept this theory, one will see that the Fathers unanimously treated these books in practice as Scripture, and goes on to invoke St. Cyril of Jerusalem, [315-386 A.D.] who stated:

35. Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench[6] thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if thou art desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them.” (Emphasis mine).

Matt1618 explains,

Now he does include the Deuterocanonical book of Baruch, but excludes the rest of the Deuterocanonical books. He does even use the term ‘apocryphal’ in reference to the other Deuterocanonical books not in the canon and says not to have anything to do with them, and not to read them. Again, these are the books not to ‘be read in the Churches’, thus with a Liturgical function from which they are excluded. Thus, as in Athanasius, he is only speaking of those books that are read in the Liturgy. That is what the canon is. But what about the idea that he said to not even read the ‘apocryphal’ books? Cyril himself does not give an explanation on what he means. (Emphasis mine).

Matt goes on to quote a writing from Cyril which alludes to 1 or possibly 3 apocryphal books as factual information, and therefore he concludes they are Scripture, but by this logic every book that the Bible refers to, from the Book of Jasher to Enoch, must also be considered Scripture, while Cyril's statement

Matt also tries to explain why Scriptural books were not allowed to be read in church, along with his logic behind his argument.

It is possible that at the time, there were certain books, not in the canon, that were able to be twisted in an unorthodox manner, by those opponents of the Catholic Church. It is possible that the Deuterocanonicals were twisted by some. We know that many years later, there were some times where even some of even the protocanonical books were forbidden to be read for short periods of time because Scriptures were being twisted for heretical purposes. However, that doesn’t mean that the books noted aren’t Scripture.

However, besides not fostering Biblical literacy, it is also incontrovertible that because something of truth was quoted in the Bible or by church father’s, that does not the whole book Scripture, and thus fathers made the distinction, and must we.

There is discussion, debate, disagreement on many things. We've been over the lists and at this point are beating a dead horse. At any rate, I will agree, that "Trent ratified" the canon of scripture that the Church had previously defined.

Yet it is not conciliar decrees that really establish writings as being such, and writings were recognized as Scripture in Jesus time without an assuredly infallible magisterium. Formal declarations by valid authorities are right and useful, but what essentially establishes writings as being from God is the same thing that establishes a man of God as such, which is due to their unique and enduring qualities, holiness and doctrine, with supernatural Divine attestation, such as the changes which are realized by those who trust and obey Him, all of which which conforms to and complements that was prior established as being of God. And the writings that fall into that class of Scripture are the only assuredly infallible source of truth and authority on it. To the glory of God who gave them. If only I kept them as fully as i should.

a blind pharisee all on his own achieved the righteousness of Christ, after Christ was resurrected. Christian theology says none are righteousness, no not one, and that no one goes to the Father except thru the Son,

So you don't accept the commandment to "love thy neighbor as thyself"? Or you understand it, with the first great commandment, as not actual commandments to be obeyed, but the communications of a God who will lie to His people for 3,000 or 5,000 years, depending on how you count, that turns out to be a shell game. That's about as unChristian as you can get.

Who said anything about "all on his own"?

You apparently don't understand the meaning of "none are righteous." Paul was as given to Semitic hyperbole as Christ in His recorded words.

"No one goes to the Father except through the Son" describes a reality that believing Jews were and are unaware of, in that they were and are unaware of the Triune nature of God. That doesn't mean that they don't go to Father and it doesn't mean that they don't go through the Son, even if they don't know it, even if they deny it. You have the same problem understanding the meaning of extra Ecclesia nulla salus.

Unless of course you mean to argue that the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob is a demon rather than the real God. Not, of course, an unprecedented argument. A stupid one IMO, and one condemned by the Church as heresy.

You apparently don't understand the meaning of "none are righteous." Paul was as given to Semitic hyperbole as Christ in His recorded words.

Psa 53:3 Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; [there is] none that doeth good, no, not one.

Mat 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

Mar 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God.

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Maryz, the problem is men think they are good.. they compare themselves to other men instead of God..who is the standard of righteousness and holiness . Thats why they think they deserve to be saved, because they are better than other men..

So you don't accept the commandment to "love thy neighbor as thyself"? Or you understand it, with the first great commandment, as not actual commandments to be obeyed, but the communications of a God who will lie to His people for 3,000 or 5,000 years, depending on how you count, that turns out to be a shell game. That's about as unChristian as you can get.

Do you know why God gave us the commandments ?

"No one goes to the Father except through the Son" describes a reality that believing Jews were and are unaware of, in that they were and are unaware of the Triune nature of God.

Tell that to Jesus ...was he lying?

John 14: 6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.

Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen

Scripture text: Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition

Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
ancíllæ suæ.

Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
recordátus misericórdiæ,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.

Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.

Amen.

Below are the examples
of exalting other deities.
They are real.
They are serious.
They are owned,
operated in,
manifested in,
heart-felt wallowed in
by millions of Roman Catholics around the world.
Pretending otherwise does not change the facts.
White washing it with magicsterical diplospeak
doesn't change the facts.
Rationalizing it with 101 weasel words
doesn't change the facts.
.
.
.

the FACTS are easy enough to see below
for anyone with
more discernment than a gnat's.
.
.
.
Those reading this with any consciousness above comotose
no longer have any excuse.
.
.
.
Holy Spirit will be nudging, urging, forsaking of all such
--ALL HINT OF SUCH--
IGNORING HIS LEADING, NUDGING, URGING
in such matters can be spiritually deadly.
Very spiritually deadly.
.
.
.
ONCE AGAIN,
just a small part of
THE EVIDENCE: .
.
.

Here's the title:

http://www.amazon.com/Ten-Meditations-Mysteries-Rosary-Ferraro/dp/0819801577/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272938246&sr=1-2

And it carries the official sanctions of:

ni•hil ob•stat
n.
1. Roman Catholic Church An attestation by a church censor that a book contains nothing damaging to faith or morals.
2. Official approval, especially of an artistic work.

WITH RICHARD CARDINAL CUSHING’S IMPRIMATUR

Let me track down the brief portion of quotes upthread . . .

Here they are:

However, as we've seen through a variety of sources--a pile of them in Ferraro's manual about the Rosary--the Roman Catholic et al/Vatican Edifice disagrees with a lot of the claims of RC's hereon to the contrary.

p.32
.
[Quixicated emphases below]
Mary is crowned Queen of heaven and earth, dispenser of all graces . . .

p32
4 - She became Queen of Purgatory, where she exercises her power as mediatrix in behalf of these suffering souls.

5 - She became Queen of us sinners, to assist us through the dangers of this life and to help us in difficulties.

6 - She became the ruler of hell, that trembles at her slightest gaze and is defeated by her power.

"Just as a rock extracted from earth will precipitate into the abyss, so will man, left without Mary's help, quickly slide toward hell." --Richard of St Victor

p37
Sacred Heart of Jesus, Thy kingdom come; Thy kingdom come through Mary! --Partial Indulgence

p41
"Mary is the tree of life to those who grasp her, and he is happy who hold her fast." --Prov. 3:18

p43
1 - "Hail Mary, beloved daughter of the Father, Mother of the Divine Son, Spouse of the Holy Spirit, complement of the most august Trinity!"

p45
6 - To her was granted grace greater than that conferred upon all others, 'that she might vanquish sin in every respect.'
.
[Qx: I guess Christ's vanquishing sin was unnecessary--or ineffectual without Mary's assistance?]

p46
7 - "Mary is the dawn of God because, just as the dawn marks the end of darkness and the beginning of day, so Mary indicates the end of vices and the beginning of virtue."
.
[Qx: I guess Christ's conquering on The Cross and HIS conquering trip to hell were unncessary?]

9 - God loved Mary so much that He gave her the keys to His heart. 'No one can go to God without Mary drawing him.'
.
[Qx: I guess Holy Spirit has been relegated to a 'Walter Mitty' role as spouse of Mary? That's SOME POWER to cancel & take over HOLY SPIRIT'S role to draw men to God!]

p47
4 - "Mary, trusting in the word of the angel, destroyed the sin Eve committed by trusting in the serpent.'
.
[Qx: Evidently, she beat Christ to the job of vanquishing sin!]

5 - "She desired the safety of everyone, went in search of it, and obtained it; it was also through her that this salvation was wrought."
.
[QX: What an unnecessary waste of precious Blood and suffering on THE CROSS!!!/sar]

p47
10 - "As Noah's Ark saved all the animals that entered it, so Mary saves all the souls that entrust themselves to her care."

p50
8 - "If she were not so holy as she is, how could God appoint her to be the ladder of Paradise, the advocate of the world, meatrix between HIm and us?"

p50
4 - "By becoming Mother of God, Mary belongs to the order of hypostatic union; hence she participates IN the infinite sanctity of God."

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.