Was Mary Sinless?

The Aristophrenium ^ | 12/05/2010 | " Fisher"

[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.

[lastchance]

As you wish.

[lastchance]

They do have defense for the faith. It is called Truth.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

On an aside; you sound like a certain troll who condemned the U.S. because of our history of slavery.

Wow. Who are you?

Perhaps you might garner better results by demonstrating Christ's love within you than by calling your fellow FReepers NAZIs and collaborators.

If you're having trouble understanding English, please have the person reading this to you remind you that I have not called ANY FReeper any name. Unless, of course, you think Ratzinger is a FReeper.

I'm pinging a few others so they might see your real intentions on this thread. There have been other FReepers who have started out friendly to the Reformation who ended up defending Rome and its anti-Scriptural errors.

Post under any other name, do you?

One more thing, chuckles

You seem to be the only one laughing around here.

May I call you Shirley?

[Grizzled Bear]

They have no defense for their faith, so they fall back on ridicule, idiotic photos and personal assaults.

To be fair, Quix did it first.

However, they're not being very original; they're using the same photos.

Besides, Quix has a bit more style.

[lastchance]

Sorry my first response was harsh. I of course abide by your decisions. But at what point does somebody get called on account for lying over and over again?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I see RCs are once again resorting to “potty mouth” comments.

No surprise.

[lastchance]

I’d sooner wait for a raven or two.

[lastchance]

You found Grizzled Bear out. Good on you. Sarc.

[Jaded]

Is there and Exorcist available for these people? Maybe they are actually employed by ABCBSNBC et al. The screeching sounds the same.

[Religion Moderator]

On the Religion Forum, one poster's view of truth, reality, facts, etc. may be irreconcilable to another poster's view of the same things.

So do not accuse another Freeper of telling a lie - it attributes motive, the intent to deceive. It is "making it personal."

A reply such as "For the umpteenth time, no!" does not attribute motive.

[Quix]

You need to request that the RM removes that post, too.

[Quix]

You need to request the RM to remove this post and post

#2232 as well.

[Natural Law]

"Heretics and nutcases are not bound by truth."

Some simply cannot tell the truth even when there is nothing to be gained by lying or when the truth might actually be beneficial. There are certainly some anti-Catholics who are sociopathic pathological liars.

A sociopath is defined as someone who lies incessantly to get their way and does so with little concern for others. A sociopath is often goal-oriented (i.e., lying is focused - it is done to get one's way). Sociopaths have little regard or respect for the rights and feelings of others.

Pseudologia fantastica is one of several terms applied by psychiatrists to the behavior of habitual or pathological lying. The defining characteristics of pseudologia fantastica are that, first, the stories told are not entirely improbable and often have some element of truth. They are not a manifestation of delusion or some wider form of psychosis: upon confrontation, the teller can admit them to be untrue, even if unwillingly. Second, the fabricative tendency is long lasting; it is not provoked by the immediate situation or social pressure as much as it originates with the person's innate urge to act in accordance. Third, a definitely internal, not an external, motive for the behavior can be clinically discerned e.g. a sense of inadequacy might cause a person to lie repeatedly, without the lying being a pathological symptom.

[Quix]

You need to request the RM remove this post # 2243, as well.

[boatbums]

The account seems to emphasize the miracle of wine rather than the interaction of Mary and Jesus.

I've often wondered if when Mary said, "Do whatever he tells you.", and Jesus said, "Here's a bag of shekels, go down to the Cana Total Wine shoppe and get what you need.", if the account would have ever made it into Scripture? ;o)

[Jaded]

What are you talking about?

[markomalley]

Do you all have separate ping lists for your general-purpose pings? One that you use for those vice one that you use for these 25,897,326 post long arguments with the same old people having the same old argument?

Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again

I’d like to stay on your regular ping list. But I am really not interested in these threads. They are boring and repetitive.

Please advise if such a thing is possible.

[narses]

I am working on just that idea. It takes time. My apologies.

[Quix]

Actually,

Quix did

most certainly

NOT do it first.

A very fiercely Rabid RC who reportedly had to withdraw from FR for his type "A" personality health and survival

did it first . . . with a version of this gif:

.

Whereupon, Quix quickly noted the merit and fun in using gifs and was off and running.

However for however many months or years, other Proddy brothers hosted the gifs for me to use on their accounts.

Finally, I learned how to open and use a photobucket.com account myself . . . and the fun has multiplied.

Few things strike to the heart of puffery, arrogance, prissiness, pontifical haughtiness, starchiness, snobbery, exclusivism, etc. like a well chosen and well timed gif.

And I've LONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG been trained, conditioned, commissioned and inclined to poke sharp, big holes in such junk as that.