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.
You and me and all believers are just as close to Christ as Mary was. Read your Bible and know the truth.
And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother." -- Mark 3:32-35"And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.
Who could tell us, in profound detail, about His infancy, His teenage years, and the afflictions of His ministry? Obviously, the woman who held the Savior of the world in her arms from the time of His birth, calmed His crying with her lullabies, healed His childhood wounds, and watched Him grow and become a man, would have been closer to Him than any other human being.
Where does Mary tell us any of those things?
She doesn't. And there's a good reason for that. Because Mary is not the focus of our worship, our faith, our lives or our prayers. In fact, she plays no part in them because Christ takes up all our heart and fills it.
At least, He should. Pity some make room for others when Christ is our "all in all."
....Men within the OPC, including at least one member of the Committee itself, teach heresy regarding the Gospel and many other fundamentals of the faith.He then goes on to say that Satan has won his war of attrition against the one true Gospel in the OPC (113). and The OPC long ago ceased to proclaim the one true Gospel to the exclusion of all false gospels (115). and The Orthodox Presbyterian Church has abandoned the marks of a true church of Jesus Christ (118).
If a person doesn't understand that, he/she should pray for eyes to see and ears to hear. God is merciful.
Makes you wonder...
You’ve posted this before and yet you’ve never been able to say what this particular person’s problem is with the OPC.
What, specifically, is he complaining about?
Specifically.
Why doesn’t the OrthoPresbyterian Cult stop pretending to be Christian? Instead, the OPC keeps maligning the image of Christian Protestants whom they claim to represent. All the while the OPC keeps cursing other Protestant groups — like their attack on the Methodists and attacks on pentecostals and others.
There are plenty of people who are blessed and no longer sin. Being born again means there is no longer a bad spirit that compels us to sin. That is a fact!
Yes, praying to dead people.
Where in any of the Scripture you posted does it say to pray to anyone other than the Triune God?
Your catechism says Mary participates with Christ in the salvation of men.
Your popes teach that Mary is a "co-redeemer."
Your catechism is littered with heresy.
The OPC is not Christian, just keeps a thin veneer of hyperCalvinism so it can attack Christianity and then say "oh, we just follow Calvin"
- Belot, an Anabaptist was arrested for passing out tracts in Geneva and also accusing Calvin of excessive use of wine. With his books and tracts burned, he was banished from the city and told not to return on pain of hanging (J.L. Adams, The Radical Reformation, pp. 597-598).
- Jacques Gruent was racked and then executed for calling Calvin a hypocrite
- A man who publicly protested against the reformer's doctrine of predestination was flogged at all the crossways of the city and then expelled.
- Calvin's Letter to the Marquis Paet, chamberlain to the King of Navarre, 1561. "Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels [Anabaptists and others], who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard."
Common sense and life experience would also tell us that we're very much capable of falling into sin, even after receiving that precious gift of grace. Grace will certainly strengthen us and equip us for our new, redeemed life as children of God, but we still have our free will, and must continue to ask God for help in our life's journey towards heaven. We grow in sanctity.
Let me ask you something. Do you really think many of our elected leadership in Washington DC listens to the man or for that matter are practicing Roman Catholics? Who has their ears? Hint. The ones who have their ears last name does not start with an R, they are not Roman Catholic, but some of them do love their title of Reverend. I wish many of the elected officals in Washington DC would abide in their churches teachings. Thats both Protestant and Catholic BTW.
There are good God Fearing Roman Catholics trying to restore some sense of national morality to this nation. Ones like Alan Keyes who for at least two decades have been trying only to be ridiculed for it from all sides. The Pope has enough on his plate leading the church and dealing with some very serious issues ones before him did not deal with. He is fighting an ultra liberal wing of the Catholic Church. If you don't believe me you may want to look at issues like the leadership of the health care system ran by the church for starters. Look at Notre Dame University as well. Saying he is a globalist in a political sense is not what he is doing. He no more is such than Billy Graham.
The truth is I could post the name of almost any preacher of The Gospel today in any Christian Church and within an hour a post would be there saying what evils they had done. Let me give you and example. John Hagee Maybe not an hour but lets see how long it takes. Now with Hagee some things he says I agree with & some I don't but I learned from reading some of his books about spiritual warfare. The same with writers like Max Lucado. My wife reads Joyce Meyers books. Joyce can reach her. I posted the names now watch the frenzy.
lol. Your cut-and-paste is nonsense.
It’s painfully apparent to anyone on these threads that Roman Catholics cannot support their anti-Scriptural beliefs and practices from the Bible.
So instead, to fill that gaping hole, they pile on personal assaults and smarmy comments about other churches with absolutely no evidence to back it up.
When and if you can EVER manage to defend your faith according to the Scriptures, as all Christians are commanded to do, be sure to let us know.
Until then, all you have is insult and cut-and-paste blather about something you apparently know nothing about. Say whatever you want to say about the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
Every time you bring it up it simply permits me to link to their website where people can decide for themselves whether or not the OPC knows what the Gospel is.
Sadly, something Roman Catholics on this forum have yet to be able to accomplish.
What is the Gospel, Cronos? What was the Good News Jesus preached?
Let’s see what happens to post 2375 :>} Be back in a while I’ve got an X-box appointment with a snowboard game. :>}
All men are fallen. That includes Mary and Ratzinger.
The fact that RC priests believe themselves to be an “alter Christus,” “another Christ,” should be enough to send any RC running for the exit.
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.