"I don't know what you want here, but I think you should know that I've killed a lot of old people in my time. And I'm not above doing it again."
-- Dr Johnny Fever, WKRP In Cincinnatti, pilot episode
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.
Well, I’m not Orthodox or Coptic, so I won’t go there.
There was certainly debate about what books to include, but the Church settled it (for Catholics) in 382. And so it stood until Luther.
“”To be fair to bb, i didn’t discern her trying to eliminate the human connection to Christ””
Not intentionally,but Christ inherited some things from Mary to become true man and it seems mitochondrial DNA is one of them, mitochondrial DNA is in our blood inherited exclusively from our mothers and can be traced back to them in our blood.
Molecular cell biology
By Harvey F. Lodish
Surprisingly, we inherit a small amount of genetic material entirely and uniquely from our mothers. This is the circular DNA present in mitochondria
And from UTEXAS
Mitochondrial sequence. Each of your cells (except red blood cells again) contains hundreds to thousands of organelles known as mitochondria. Mitochondria ultimately evolved from bacteria, and they have their own miniature chromosome. Unlike the case with your (nuclear) chromosomes, all of the mitochondria in your body are inherited from your mother – so you have a single type. The sequence of your mitochondrial DNA matches that of your mother’s mitochondrial DNA and can be used as one form of a DNA type.
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/bio301d/Topics/DNA/text.html
So,Blessed Pope Leo XIII was not really in error after all
BB, I apologize for not reading your original post as well
What was taught to them by in large was taught by Christ and later The Holy Spirit. This included corrections among themselves. Of the ones of higher education Matthew and later Luke by their trade and Paul by his before his conversion. How many lettters did Paul actually write by his own hand BTW? John likely could write toward the end of his life. But fishermen were laborers and it was a very demandiing and dangerous job. If a trade had been there easier for them as more educated I'd say they would have taken it. It doesn't mean they were ignorant or stupid it means they weren't Scribes.
Christ called four fishermen. In modern day He could have called four steel workers on a high rise or four farmers plowing a field with a mule and made preachers of them without college. BTW who taught John The Baptist? The answer is in scripture. John The Baptist was born with knowledge of Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians ch 1 I think pretty much says it all.
“The reason why the Trent list is the first infallible pronouncement of the list is because nobody ever challenged it before Luther!”
In your defense of Rome you continue to argue out of ignorance, willful or not i do not know, as i provided you with both documented history and links. You do not have to be a scholar do read the work of such,and to present an informed argument.
If you go to Mass every day for 3 years, you will get MOST of the Bible read in the Epistles and the Gospels.
"Most of the Bible" is not quite the number that I arrived at, but yes, you are getting a decent amount. I readily confirm that you are getting MOST of the New Testament in the Epistles and the Gospels, though!
Like I said before....MOST Catholics have gone to CATHOLIC schools where they are IMMERSED in the Bible and we also read on our own....geesh...I’ll match you anyday.
No, not on the Lord’s side, but perhaps “Sanctimonious” referred to hypocritical persons using the pro-life issue to promote themselves while holding to wrong practices. The poster will have to answer.
Thanks.
"I don't know what you want here, but I think you should know that I've killed a lot of old people in my time. And I'm not above doing it again."
-- Dr Johnny Fever, WKRP In Cincinnatti, pilot episode
well, I AM from Cinti!!
In your defense of Luther you posted links to Protestant sites that would take way too long to read, let alone refute.
Instead of having the decency to make a specific argument, you post links to sites that you refer to as “documented history”.
I could post links to sites as well, but consider that to be cowardice. I posted the canons, you can cry “ignorant” all you want. Trent was in response to Luther!
Could you answer something seriously please? What is your religion and have you been taught what Catholics believe in that religion? Or do you just concentrate on your own religion?
LOL!
Losing sleep over it?
Except that works don’t save anyone.
The pharisees kept the Law meticulously and yet Jesus said about them,.....
Matthew 5:20 “For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”
I’d like to see that
Ann, you and I have exchanged numerous posts on the subject of Catholicism since at least 2003. I have to ask - what led you to finally ask what I believe?
Add to it that my own legs be healed. The past year to year and a half my legs have started twisting on me. It’s likely arthritis caused from my walking off balance all my life due to sensory issues. That and I was born club footed. I walk with the aid of a cane now as my balance is poor and leg strength is deminishing. Thank GOD it’s not hit my shoulders and arms from which is use the most to lift with. My legs & feet are more crooked and twisted now than a politican LOL.
I asked you a question? What is it with you Protestants that you cannot answer that question?? Really....have you EVER known a Catholic that wouldn’t answer what religion they were??
If the proof is not available, then what business does anyone have quoting numbers of pulled posts? Unless they have some other way of knowing, that the rest of us don't have.
What does that mean? (BTW I think you mean "good News" )..but that translates gospel..what is the good news? what is the gospel ?
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.