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.
We must never adore her; that is for God alone. But otherwise we cannot honor her to excess, because it is not possible to overestimate the privileges God gave her in making her His own Mother. “What the church teaches,” by Monsignor J.D. Conway/ Imprimatur of Ralph L. Hayes,, New York; Harper and Brothers; 1962 (He also states, “It seems manifest that Christians simply adapted the art of pagan Rome to their religious needs:” p. 218)
Alex responded this in 2,078 and tt is difficult to distinguish between latria, dulia and hyperdulia as such is of the heart. As as one commentator stated,
Although (technically) Mary is not to be worshipped in the same sense that God is worshipped, she is to be granted devotion and worship in a lesser sense. And if the fine distinctions made by Catholic theologians "are usually not reflected in the practice of the faithful," idolatry would seem to be a distinct possibility in the lives of the faithful. Thus, "By the sixteenth century, as evidenced by the spiritual struggles of the Reformers, the image of Mary had largely eclipsed the centrality of Jesus Christ in the life of believers." (Robert C. Broderick, ed., The Catholic Encyclopedia, revised and updated; NY: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987pp.32,33),
Yet there is a Biblical basis for distinguishing forms. While bowing down normally denotes worship of God, and hence bowing down to idols is forbidden, there are a few times when it occurs toward man in a sanctioned way which denotes respect, or obeisance and submission due to one's position, such as Abraham (Gn. 23:12) and toward Jacob and Joseph, (Gn. 27:29; 37:10; 42:6; 43:28) and to worship (proskuneō, trans. worship elsewhere in KJV) before faithful Christians because Jesus love for them. (Rev 3:9)
However, what is lacking in such is the manner of adulation on steroids given to holy Mary above that which is written, against which we are warned. (1Cor. 4:6) Thus rather than Mary being remembered and honored as a holy women who was blessed above women because of whom she was privileged to mother, she is lauded as being intrinsically superior to every women that lived, with an adulation that befits Christ not man, and is made like Him is many ways beyond what Scripture reveals, with Divine functions and privileges being ascribed to her.
As Jesus is sinless, so is Mary; as He shed His sinless blood for our sins so Mary did by Him, and as He redeemed the word so Mary is made co redemptorist (the logic behind which can lead back to Eve); she being “the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. (Irenaeus of Lyons, Adversus haereses 3:22) As Jesus rose bodily to glory so did Mary, and as souls come to God by Him so they come by Mary to Jesus, and as Jesus can hear prayers unlimited and constantly makes intercession so does Mary, and one may obtain through her what they could not by coming directly through Christ, or sooner; and as Jesus is the dispenser of grace so Mary, and the so forth. This is not what is evident Biblical, and its extremes can only be extrapolated the same way Mormonic doctrine is, with its beginning starting with a little extra-Biblical leaven which leaven the whole lump, with extra-Biblical tradition being the substance for such, justified through the Catholic science of development of doctrine.
The Catholic Encyclopedia explains below (emphasis mine) the development Marian devotion, and that one aspect seen among a couple church fathers was the idea the martyrs, that since by their death they
“could obtain graces and blessings for others, naturally and immediately led to their direct invocation.
A further reinforcement, of the same idea, was derived from the cult of the angels, which, while pre-Christian in its origin, was heartily embraced by the faithful of the sub-Apostolic age. It seems to have been only as a sequel of some such development that men turned to implore the intercession of the Blessed Virgin. This at least is the common opinion among scholars, though it would perhaps be dangerous to speak too positively. Evidence regarding the popular practice of the early centuries is almost entirely lacking, and while on the one hand the faith of Christians no doubt took shape from above downwards (i.e. the Apostles and teachers of the Church delivered a message which the laity accepted from them with all docility)”
Thus the substantiation for what came to beyond what is written is asserted to surely have (nebulous oral) tradition as its source, thus effectively Rome holds to an open canon, as does Mormonism, while its supreme authority is its self-proclaimed assuredly infallible magisterium, which is the foundational issue, as by it all things are established. Thus regarding those who disagree that Mary was preserved sinless, the Pope presumes to pronounce,
“Hence, if anyone shall dare which God forbid to think otherwise than has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment, that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith, that he has separated from the unity of the Church and that furthermore by his own action he incurs the penalties established by Law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the error he thinks in his heart.” (Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854)
Of course, not all the extremes of Marian devotion are officially sanctioned by the church, wisely so, but too many are (what is written in encyclicals is generally understood to be infallible, and some hold all are):
“The foundation of all Our confidence, as you know well, Venerable Brethren, is found in the Blessed Virgin Mary. For, God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.” Pope Pius IX, in Ubi Primum (On the Immaculate Conception), Encyclical promulgated on February 2, 1849, #5.
“The power thus put into her (Mary’s) hands is all but unlimited. How unerringly right, then, are Christian souls when they turn to Mary for help...How rightly, too, has every nation and every liturgy without exception acclaimed her great renown, which has grown greater with the voice of each succeeding century. Among her many other titles we find her hailed as ‘our Lady, our Mediatrix,’ (St. Bernard, Serm.II in Adv. 4) ‘the Reparatrix of the whole world,’ (St. Tharasius, Orat. in Praesentatione) ‘the Dispenser of all heavenly gifts.’ (On Off. Graec., 8 Dec.).” Pope Leo XIII, in Adiutricem (On the Rosary), Encyclical promulgated on September 5, 1895, #8.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13adiut.htm
‘O Virgin most holy, none abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee; none, O Mother of God, attains salvation except through thee; none receives a gift from the throne of mercy except through thee.’” Pope Leo XIII, in Adiutricem (On the Rosary), Encyclical promulgated on September 5, 1895, #9.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13adiut.htm
With equal truth may it be also affirmed that, by the will of God, Mary is the intermediary through whom is distributed unto us this immense treasure of mercies gathered by God, for mercy and truth were created by Jesus Christ. Thus as no man goeth to the Father but by the Son, so no man goeth to Christ but by His Mother....Mary is this glorious intermediary...” Pope Leo XIII, in Octobri Mense (On the Rosary), Encyclical promulgated on September 22, 1891, # 4.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13ro1.htm
Thus is confirmed that law of merciful meditation of which We have spoken, and which St. Bernardine of Siena thus expresses: ‘Every grace granted to man has three degrees in order; for by God it is communicated to Christ, from Christ it passes to the Virgin, and from the Virgin it descends to us.’”Pope Leo XIII, in Iucunda Semper Expectatione (On the Rosary), Encyclical promulgated on September 8, 1894, #5.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13ro5.htm
All gifts which the Author of all good (God) has deigned to communicate to the unhappy posterity of Adam, are, according to the loving resolve of His Divine Providence, dispensed by the hands of the Most Holy Virgin.” Pope Benedict XV (AAS 9, 1917, 266) (quoted in “About Our Lady, our Blessed Mother”, by Our Lady’s Warriors).
http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/abtmary.htm
.When therefore we read in the writings of Saint Bernard, Saint Bernardine, Saint Bonaventure, and others that all in heaven and on earth, even God himself, is subject to the Blessed Virgin, they mean that the authority which God was pleased to give her is so great that she seems to have the same power as God. Her prayers and requests are so powerful with him that he accepts them as commands in the sense that he never resists his dear mother’s prayer because it is always humble and conformed to his will.... St. Louis de Montfort, in Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, #27, 246. http://www.ewtn.com/library/Montfort/TRUEDEVO.HTM
“In conclusion: we may say that, in virtue of the divine salvific counsels ordaining a most perfect redemption, our Lady as Coredemptrix is included with Christ, the One Mediator.” Rev. Fr. Peter Damian M. Fehlner, F.F.I., professor of Catholic Theology, in Immaculata Mediatrix — Toward a Dogmatic Definition of the Coredemption.
http://www.voxpopuli.org/book_2_10.php
“Pope Pius XII explains in an address on the Queenship of Mary, ‘when the glorious Virgin Mary entered triumphantly into heaven and was elevated above the choirs of angels to the throne of the Most Holy Trinity.’ And then Christ ‘placed a triple crown of glory on her head, presented her to the heavenly court, seated her at his right hand and pronounced her Queen of the Universe.’...Opus Sanctorum Angelorum, Formation Letter, “Mary - ‘Regina Angelorum’”, April, 2000.
http://www.opusangelorum.org/Formation/Maryregina.html
Mary's role as its intercessor was spelled out in the 12th century by theologians, such as Eadmer, (c. 1124) and St. Peter Damian, and was popularized in collections of her miracles. Mary placates the judge. According to Eadmer (A.D. 1060–1124), an English monk and student of Anselm, “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus...[who] does not at once, answer anyone who invokes him, but only does so after just judgment. But if the name of his mother Mary is invoked, her merits intercede so that he is answered even if the merits of him who invoked her do not deserve it.”
In the word says Anselm, through her “the elements are renewed, the netherworld is healed, the demons are trodden underfoot, men are saved and angels are restored.” in the margins out, Smithfield decretals, began again, for over a hundred folios, Mary asserts her power over devils-and sometimes also over Jews. Andrew Taylor, “Three medieval manuscripts and their readers,” University of Pennsylvania press; page 173
The late Walter Martin noted,
I have in my library hundreds of pamphlets, manuscripts and books all published with the official imprimatur of the Roman Catholic Church. In every one of them, language which is applied to God alone in Scripture is applied to the Virgin Mary. She is worshipped: she is given almost every title of Christ. Thus, they are subtly but systematically raising her to a place of equality with our Lord.... Worship, prayers, shrines, and even altars in churches have been consecrated to her around the earth. The healing grottoes are seldom dedicated to Jesus of Nazareth, but to "Our Lady of Lourdes," "Our Lady St. Anne de Beaupre," "Our Lady of Fatima," etc. The statues which are seen in Roman Catholic homes are invariably of Mary. The largest niches in Roman Catholic churches are occupied by images of Mary. The preponderance of prayers are to Mary, and the "Hail, Mary" is repeated in the Rosary continually. (Walter Martin, The Roman Catholic Church in History (Livingston, NJ: Christian Research Institute, Inc., 1960), p.54)
Hitler's Pope has been substantiated over and over against the rantings of RC apologists who were apoplectic at the notion that their pope wasn't divine and who offer as a defense one Jewish professor who is employed full-time at a Roman Catholic university.
The author did not set out to defend the Papacy during WWII as he is a well known dissident.
You are revealing your ignorance of this event. Cornwall was hired to gather evidence in support of Pacelli's sainthood. He was given unprecedented access to Vatican archives.
But what he found was not what he expected to find. Instead of exonerating Pacelli, Cornwell found copious evidence of Pacellli's culpability with the Nazis.
And Cornwell, a practicing Roman Catholic, has NOT rescinded ANY of his findings. He received so much criticism from Roman Catholics that he said he perhaps should not have drawn conclusions as to what were Pacelli's true motives. Motives. That's it. He stands by every word of fact he wrote.
Here's his first chapter. Read it for yourself and decide...
Try to remember that Hitler was excommunicated by his own actions.
lol. How convenient. Hitler excomunicated himself. lol. Saving Rome the trouble of having to formally separate itself from the Nazi leader.
What luck.
I know that is very hard for you to understand.
No, what you write is quite simplistic. Noting "hard" nor factual about it.
Requiring you to indulge in logic and facts but do try.
Thanks for the advice. If at all possible, try to abide by the rules and stop making this personal. You have repeatedly made comments to me today that break the rules.
You continue to shame the name Christian. God will Judge.
"Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head." -- Romans 12:20
Hungry?
I’ve spent some time in Germany. I was surprised at the amount of sentiment that still seemed to be giving Hitler a break and rationalizing the war and the holocaust.
As the article I linked to informs us, some people did the right thing.
Like I said, it’s pretty strange that in all the world there was NO ONE to lead the Roman Catholic church but a former Hitler Youth raised in Bavaria by a father in the S.S.
And frankly, I don’t care to spend a lot of sympathy with any German who lived near the camps and could smell the order of burnt flesh but who to this day denies they knew what was happening.
All men are self-deceived. But sometimes that self-deception is lethal to others.
Self-portrait?
I thought that several Catholics said Mary wasn't "worshipped."
Is the information posted by Daniel1212 erroneous or correct?
Berger is a Roman Catholic priest. He’s not going to trash the pope.
What he did do, however, was to reveal the truth that some men and boys did resist in Nazi Germany.
The Ratzinger family choose to go along and they were rewarded for it.
Better for Rome if it had found one of those resisters and made them pope rather than a man who capitulated to evil.
Man, you must be sitting next to the server.
No, I don’t say he had anything to do with the furnaces other than working alongside thousands of other Nazis who went along with evil.
Actually, he’s a perfect choice for Rome.
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.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
That prayer illustrates Mary was a sinner like the rest of mankind and needed a Savior just as we all do.
But prayers to dead people are prohibited by God’s word. Only God is worthy of our prayers. Only God hears our prayers. Only God answers our prayers.
Take your eyes off the creature and keep them on the Creator. Life makes more sense that way and ultimately good fruit abounds.
More self-portraits?
They have no defense for their faith, so they fall back on ridicule, idiotic photos and personal assaults.
And yet Christ abides for all those who love Him alone.
I'm not rationalizing the war. I've simply seen enough of human depravity to know most people will ignore or tolerate evil as long as their interests are protected. Spend some time in the worst part of any decaying major U.S. city and you'll see what I mean.
Again, I have doubts about anything the eneMedia claims. I've got enough "reasonable doubt" about Ratzinger.
I reject the "infallibility" of anyone other than God, I believe the doctrine of purgatory denies the sufficiency of Jesus' self sacrifice and I believe infant baptism only results in a wet baby.
I do not agree with many of the Catholic Church's most cherished beliefs.
However, I will not condemn a man based on questionable claims.
On an aside; you sound like a certain troll who condemned the U.S. because of our history of slavery. Even if some Catholics were complicit in this evil, those faithful to the Church today are not guilty by association.
Perhaps you might garner better results by demonstrating Christ's love within you than by calling your fellow FReepers NAZIs and collaborators.
One more thing, chuckles. I don't know where you went or who you associated with, but many Germans I met apologized for the war. Additionally, I attended a memorial service in St Avold, France,and had many locals shake my hand and thank me for America's involvement. Perhaps you should exercise discretion concerning your associates.
Sorry. I’ll side with your grand dad.
Dang!
;-)
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.