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.
Gospel means good news. Epistle means a letter. The gospels are narratives of the life and words of Jesus. Matthew, Mark and Luke are the synoptic gospels. The Gospel of John is a non synoptic gospel.
As for specifics of the good news, Luke 4:18-21 is probably as good a summary as any.
18”(A)THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS UPON ME,
BECAUSE HE ANOINTED ME TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR.
HE HAS SENT ME TO PROCLAIM RELEASE TO THE CAPTIVES,
AND RECOVERY OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND,
TO SET FREE THOSE WHO ARE OPPRESSED
19(T)TO PROCLAIM THE FAVORABLE YEAR OF THE LORD.”
20And He (U)closed the book, gave it back to the attendant and (V)sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on Him.
21And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”
cva66snipe, if you advanced an argument I would take you up on it. You offer only personal opinion based on nothing. If 1 Corinthians 1 pretty much settles it for you, I will leave you to your own wisdom.
They aren't burdens but rather life. Both me and my wife would rather be where we are with Christ than where we would be without Him even if it meant perfect health. The good news is Christ is there with us through life's adversities.
One woman goes into this a lot deeper than I ever could ever hope too about whys and how comes. Her ministry reaches millions most Preachers and Priest despite all good intentions likely can not. Her name is Joni Ericson Tada. Placed in a wheelchair at age 16 from a swimming accident. She is a great example of GOD's Grace and Power working in a persons adversity.
If these things didn't happen who would we be? Where would we be spiritually? Right now yet another affliction has hit her and she is in another fight for her health she has cancer. Joni's Posts Her ministry focuses on the disabled but everyone can learn from reading the books written on her plight.
My wife and I got to meet her once and she is a real amazing spirit filled woman. My families plight is nothing compared to hers. She's in a lot worse shape than my wife because Joni is a higher level quad. Yet Joni has been blessed by God in many ways including a Spirit filled husband she met years after her accident. Who can say that by the fruits shown of her faith and to whom she gives the Glory she is not a Christian? No one who understands The Bible could say it of her and be correct. If GOD were not with her where would she be today?
For those who don't understand many quadriplegics do not live past 5 years of onset or rather didn't when it happened to her as this was in the 1960's. Twenty years is rare. I think she is 62 now. That is 45 years in a wheelchair. Another amazing thing is quads because they usually loose stomach muscle and diaphram can't sing as it requires use of both. Oh but that woman can indeed sing. So could my wife after it hit her.
I hear that! I used to swim two miles nearly every day in an olympic-sized public pool. It had great lanes with the divider floats. I then started avoiding public pools that mostly children used - I remember MY swimming days as a kid ;o) - but when I started reading about all the germs and yucky stuff that is found even in adults only pools, I quit completely. I miss it alot, but I can't get past the ick factor.
You could honestly look at that sweet face and be okay killing and eating her??? Your esteem has dropped a few more notches. :o)
A friend used to have a bumper sticker that said: I love cats. I think they are delicious. And there's the other one that says: If we aren't supposed to eat animals, how come they're made out of meat?
Ann, you didn't ask me "what sect of Protestantism" I was - you asked me "what religion" I was. There's a whole world (and world view) of difference between those questions. As soon as you explain why you asked me the latter and RnMomof7 the former, we can talk about what my answer is.
No not quite let me add 1 CORINTHIANS Chapter 13. GOD BLESS YOU :>}
The $64,000 question has always been, "If God is good and love, then why does he let bad things happen to good people?". Many have attempted to answer that question, but without faith in Him - trusting that he IS good - those answers fall on deaf ears. The world wants a super-Santa and fairy godmother, but that is not how the true God operates. It is when we endure suffering and hardship and survive by God's grace regardless of the trials, that He gets all the glory. People on the outside look at the life of Joni and others and see the power of God that through the trial there is joy, in spite of the trial, and they (or some) realize that only a real, loving God can bring that about. THAT is what draws people to him, not the goodies, but the deep and enduring confidence that our Creator is here, with us, working all things together for our good, because he IS good and merciful, ever faithful, trustworthy, and abounding in grace and love. Knowing that, we have the strength to get through whatever he allows.
Now that you mention it, I get plenty of kooky FReepmails myself that go above and beyond the public stuff posted to/about me. See also my #1706 for another reason.
Agreed.
>>WHAT sins did she commit?? LIES?? CHEATING??? CURSING?? MURDER??? Please tell me what sins she committed.....please tell us all..yeah.....SO MANY you can’t name them, I guess. Yeah...MAry was a HUGE sinner!<<
I wasn’t there, but the source of this statement was:
Romans 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Romans 5:12
[ Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ ] Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
According to Dictionary.com:
all -
the whole of (used in referring to quantity, extent, or duration): all the cake; all the way; all year.
I believe that would include Mary.
It is interesting to note, BTW, exactly how, in the Bible, Jesus converses with and refers to His mother. But God did not choose her because she was blessed. Rather, she was blessed because God chose her.
>>God chose Mary because she was sinless — and He absolved her of Original Sin (As the Creator of the Universe this wasn’t too tough for Him).<<
Who told you that and why did you believe them?
>>She is much more active than a lot of other saints.<<
What exactly is that supposed to mean? I’m not seeing anything about that in the Bible, nor is there anywhere in the bible where it is mentioned as relevant.
Christianity is about two things: 1. The individual’s relationship with his Creator. 2. The individual’s relationship with other LIVING men.
Mary is not an irrelevance, but pulling attributes about her out of a hat is not really what Christianity is about. I’m not saying she was a bad person. Rather, she was a person, just like the rest of us. Actually, so was Jesus, with that one exception: He IS fully God and fully man. Mary WAS fully man.
>>I do not intend to participate in yet another forum established for the sole purpose of giving you a platform for blaspheming the Blessed Virgin and Catholic baiting. Take your charade of honest discourse and shove it.<<
I just read the post you were responding to. Me thinks thou doth protest too much. Your response to post 6 was completely unwarranted.
And, frankly, a bit odd. What is the big deal about this?
>>LUKE 1:48 “Because He hath regarded the humility of His Handmaid; for behold from henceforth ALL GENERATIONS SHALL CALL ME BLESSED.”<<
What do you think that scripture means? What is the significance of it? I know that if I were a woman and I was chosen by God to bear His son, I would certainly consider myself blessed, similar to how a humanist would consider themself blessed if they won the lotto.
It is a true, and the ultimate, blessing, to be chosen by God to be the source of the human side of the Savior. It’s really almost unimaginable, actually.
My two cents. Until the 16th Century, the Bible was a relatively loose collection of manuscripts, sonewhat as Jewish Scripture was until the 2nd Century. It wasn’t until after the catastrophe in Judea that the canon was more or less fixed and became the subject of the schools who created the Talmuds. It wasn’t until the Reformation that the Church fixed its canon, and part of this was a response to the Lutheran challenge. English Protestants more or less accepted the same canon as Trent, except they identified some of them as aprocryphal, and included them in the first editions of the King James Bible. No, Luther did not just toss things out, but he fancied himself a better scholar than he actually was, and of course his Greek was pretty basic. Do you really think that his choices were not influenced by his theology? The man fancied himself to have uncovered the true faith that had been buried for 1400 years, or at least for a very long time. I think he was wrong, but the point is that while he was a genius, it was his genius in the German language that sets him apart, not his biblical scholarship, which always served his theology.
Oops. some of the content caused it to be interpreted as html and the formatting was lost. Sorry.
I loved that show. I haven’t seen the movie of it, I wonder if it could match the original series.
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.