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.
Blame-shifting par excellence.....
No, the blame lays directly in the hands of the Catholic church.
lol. yes, then bury him wherever, put her in Arlington, erect a giant altar, ur, monument, and praise her for winning the war by getting married and giving birth. And that’s the worship we have going on in Mary
“Neither—and this is remarkable—in the proceedings is there manifest any serious doubt of the canonicity of the disputed writings. In the mind of the Tridentine Fathers they had been virtually canonized, by the same decree of Florence, and the same Fathers felt especially bound by the action of the preceding ecumenical synod. The Council of Trent did not enter into an examination of the fluctuations in the history of the Canon. Neither did it trouble itself about questions of authorship or character of contents. True to the practical genius of the Latin Church, it based its decision on immemorial tradition as manifested in the decrees of previous councils and popes, and liturgical reading, relying on traditional teaching and usage to determine a question of tradition.”
The lists are the same; whether the first was infallibly defined or not; I will agree that there was discussion up to the infallible declaration of Trent, but also believe that that declaration was in response to the reformers.
Ever ask anyone to pray for you? Paul did!
According to the Code of Canon Law, "Insofar as possible, one to be baptized is to be given a sponsor who is to assist an adult in Christian initiation, or, together with the parents, to present an infant at the baptism, and who will help the baptized to lead a Christian life in harmony with baptism, and to fulfill faithfully the obligations connected with it" (No. 872).
Denial is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. Admitting ones parents were remiss and ones own complacency in an issue of this importance is difficult and painful.
The only questions are:
1) With the demonstrated deficiencies in your Catechises can we reasonably expect you to know this?
Now that you know about this what are you going to do about it?
Will you remember this admission of your poor Catechesis the next time you attempt to bloviate authoritatively on the Catechism because you were "born and raised" Catholic?
” where Jesus turned water into wine on her behalf”
I think whoever said this should reread the account as it was neither on Mary’s behalf or request, she didn’t ask him to do anything but informed him of the the situation and told others to do what he said.
” Most imporantly, Catholics are very aware of her last words in the Gospel: “Do whatever He tell you”.”
But is not obedience to Christ’s commands emphasized through out the the Scriptures so Mary’s comment would simply be the comment of a faithful disciple among many? So how “most importantly”?
In the meantime, since he said he didn't come to destroy the law, its probably best we encourage others to do the best they can with it instead of reminding them about how incapable and flawed they are. Just sayin'. :-)
First it's cake then pie then soup - ah, dinner time at the inter-faith dialog. No doubt there's casseroles too, many made with cream of mushroom soup and recipes translated from the original Greek (or was it Aramaic)? Have a nice day, sir or madam.
She said “they have no more wine”. Jesus said “Woman, what does that have to do with thee and me? My hour has not yet come.”
Mary tells them to “do whatever He tells you”.
She tells Him about the situation, gets what some would consider a rebuff, and yet she still says “do whatever He tells you”... Sounds to me like she was pretty sure Jesus was going to do something! You can interpret that any way you like; I interpret it differently!
I don’t try to interpret it, I just pointed out what was there and not, nor will I try to guess what Mary might have had in mind and expected of Jesus.
The account seems to emphasize the miracle of wine rather than the interaction of Mary and Jesus.
God’s grace and faith in Christ, which is believing that He is Who He says He is, and that He has done what He said He has done, fulfills the Law, thank you, have a good day as well.
I love your list. Made me laugh! I’m going to go worship Mary now and burn my Bible. Heil Ratzinger!
This is going to end up permanently posted to someone's home page as proof of heretical Catholic dogma.
Ratzinger, Sr. continued to serve in the police even after the Night of the Long Knives and the passing of the Nuremburg Laws so he wasn’t all that uncomfortable with his Nazi superiors. He retired on time and suffered no reprisals from the Nazis, moving his family to rural Bavaria where they continued to live in harmony with the Nazi establishment. How many Germans who were “unsympathetic” to the Nazi cause retired to Bavaria, I wonder?
Probably zero.
Traunstein, the town Ratzinger retired to, is a stone’s throw from Berchtesgaden where Hitler’s Eagle’s Nest provided him with lots of R and R.
RCs just make things up. At this point the internet is littered with frantic rewrites. But even this revisionist history cannot obscure the facts.
Truth is Truth. To seek Jesus is to seek Truth.
There were plenty of priests who rescued persecuted Jews; there were also some who collaborated with the NAZIs, as well. The same can be said for Protestants (note, I didn't say "Proddys"). There were even Jews who collaborated with the NAZIs (George Soros, anyone?).
Oddly enough, nobody seems to talk about Islamic collaboration and the two Islamic Divisions in Germany's Army.
While Catholic and Protestant involvement seemed primarily involved with individuals, Islamic involvement was definitely systematic.
I once asked my dead grand dad to front me $350. He declined.
Is it written on your heart?
When Ratzinger was put forth as candidate for the Papacy, a lot of lefties shrieked that it was "a liberal's turn" to become Pope.
Most of the negative things I've heard about Ratzinger came from the far left. These are the same people who accused George W of dereliction of duty and claimed John Kerry was "smarter." They also called John Kerry a war hero.
I have to take the claims against Ratzinger with a grain of salt.
Sorry, but that is 100% wrong. Ratzinger was always the "conservative" end of the spectrum. Liberals were angry when he was suggested for pope and right before the vote it was said he stood NO CHANCE of getting enough votes.
All this is documented on FR. If I have time, I'll send a few links...again.
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.