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.
No but my better half did. She gets lonely sometimes and it's so much easier for me to get up and walk over to her and play it than her to walk to me :>} I had already told her "I'll be there in a minute" before I posted that post. I'm addicted to SSX snowboard games what can I say. 30 minutes a day habit actually.
LOL.
.
This has nothing to do with Mary.
The Proverb is Messianic and tells us just like these other verses below that the WORD was there from the very beginning. Mary is NOT the WORD and she can not save anyone.
Genesis 1:26 And Elohim said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the livestock, and over all the earth and over all the creeping creatures that creep on the earth.” Isaiah 6:8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
BLESSED BE THE NAME OF THE LORD>
Obedience Is Thicker than Blood
47Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. King James Version (KJV)
.
46-47While he was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers showed up. They were outside trying to get a message to him. Someone told Jesus, "Your mother and brothers are out here, wanting to speak with you."
.
48-50Jesus didn't respond directly, but said, "Who do you think my mother and brothers are?" He then stretched out his hand toward his disciples. "Look closely. These are my mother and brothers. Obedience is thicker than blood. The person who obeys my heavenly Father's will is my brother and sister and mother."
.
The Message (MSG)
Copyright © 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2001, 2002 by Eugene H. Peterson
.
NEW AMERICAN STD VERS:
MAT 12:
.
Changed Relationships
46(BB)While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His (BC)mother and (BD)brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him.
.
47Someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
.
48But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?"
.
49And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers!
.
50"For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother."
.
A. Matthew 12:46 : Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor 9:5; Gal 1:19
For anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear, that and similar verses conclusively put to rest all the Maryolatry, blasphemy, heresies. Alas, idol worshipers through the ages have been extremely resistent to the truth . . . until the earth opens up and swallows them up--as after the golden calf in the wilderness . . . such days are coming again sooner than most folks realize.
Mat 12:
47Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
King James Version (KJV)
Obedience Is Thicker than Blood
46-47While he was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers showed up. They were outside trying to get a message to him. Someone told Jesus, “Your mother and brothers are out here, wanting to speak with you.”
48-50Jesus didn’t respond directly, but said, “Who do you think my mother and brothers are?” He then stretched out his hand toward his disciples. “Look closely. These are my mother and brothers. Obedience is thicker than blood. The person who obeys my heavenly Father’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”
The Message (MSG)
Copyright © 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2001, 2002 by Eugene H. Peterson
NEW AMERICAN STD VERS:
MAT 12:
Changed Relationships
46(BB)While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His (BC)mother and (BD)brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him.
47Someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.”
48But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?”
49And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, “Behold My mother and My brothers!
50”For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.”
A. Matthew 12:46 : Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor 9:5; Gal 1:19
IT IS AN
ANTI-BIBLICAL FANTASY
because it is solidly against Biblical truths as repeatedly stated in God-Breathed Scripture.
There are constantly new lurkers as well as older lurkers—neutral to many things related to the Vatican and/or on the fence in terms of approach/avoidance—who just haven’t happened to have read the truths of such Vatican edifice idolatry, blasphemy, heresies.
They deserve the truth, too.
I greatly agree.
And I demonstrate that repeatedly with RC’s who care to engage me—particularly in persistent civility, mutual respect, reasonableness etc.
However, the horrors of idolatry, blasphmy and gross heresy are sometimes more than worth some fierce communications—particularly in the face of outrageously fierce and brazenly false communications from the other side.
I have no intention of always allowing the side of the Bible and Truth to be cast as wimpy, neutered, empty, silent.
A tiresome straw dog yet again.
Everyone knows that Proddys are talking about folks who’ve graduated from this life.
Sheesh.
INDEED.
Largely true.
However, the Pope’s firm Encyclical assertions in behalf of the satanic globalist world government oligarchy are now a matter of record.
I don’t recall anything unBiblical from her.
I do know of tons of stuff very helpful to millions, as you note.
Hum. One world government is going to be attempted and for a period of a few years achieved.
Let me ask you something though. What would you call a group of persons who all lived in one area, owned no property or possessions among themselves, and shared everything? The people let's say sold their houses and gave to a common treasury for the common good as needed? What type of persons would do such? Could it work?
My point? Taken out of context I could cut and paste two chapters of Acts and well you know what I mean. Of course The Lord did not intend for them to form this He told them Go into all nations. For the better or worse the Pope LIKE OUR POTUS is GOD's chosen leader of the Vatican and Catholic Church just as Obama is the president of The USA. My personal feeling is He may well be the last of what was once Conservative church leadership. To The Roman Catholic Church Doctrine he is conservative in his leadership in realtion to the Roman Catholic Doctories and Dogma as near as I can tell.
I didn't read the text of what he supposedly said in it's complete entirety nor more important do I know to WHOM it was addressed to and for what reason.
And you don’t place your own spin on what you present? Though I will commend you for not being blatant.
If the Pope in 382 says “this is the canon”, well, it sounds to me like he’s listing the canon. The deuterocanonical books were in lists I quoted. There might have been disagreements, but they were there.
I wish I had more time to do your posts justice, but I have to work for a living!
More hypocrisy....
BTW, thank you for your service for our country.
Show us some revealed truth about God that was not revealed in the Bible...
Here's a better fact...
1Jn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
1Jn 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
The fact is, we all still sin but the sin is not laid to our account...
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.