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.

[Quix]

Only when they put Christ first 24/7/365

vs themselves.

[Quix]

.

Wellllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!

Excuse us for having convictions as strong as many RC's hereon!

BTW, I'm sure the RM will be very impressed with your giving the . . . uhhhhh . . . cold shoulder . . . to his rules about Religion Forum language. Actually, your language even seems to have rushed beyond JimRob's rules for the whole forum.

Though I'm sure there must be some dogma, Encyclical, footnote in the Catechism . . . some special indulgence perhaps . . . which justifies such in the face of such awful Proddy truth avalanches.

Or maybe mother Mary taught you such gracious winsomeness on her right knee but one day a week would switch to her left knee and teach you how to bar room brawl with Proddys?

Oh, my mistake, it's usually RC's caught in the bar room brawls.

Maybe there's been a recent distribution of white hankys from Heaven outlining how mean-spirited nastiness are quite righteous and holy when dealing with Proddys. That has certainly seemed to be the FR RC Rabid Clique dogma of the century most demonstrated by RC's on FR. I guess there's a new recruit

to

THE UNROYAL ORDER OF THE KNIGHTS
OF
THE
VATICAN ALICE IN WONDERLAND SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY AND REALITY MANGLING
SPECIAL BLACK OPS SHOCK TROOPS BRIGADE
Just let me be the first to congratulate you on such an excellent demosntration of such classic RC attitudes and styles hereon. You should fit in right well. .

[metmom]

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

The Bible is truth. If it doesn't match up to the Bible it's not truth. If it's not found in the Bible, it's veracity is legitimately questionable.

John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.

[metmom]

Stars on my belly? No, only sCars.

[metmom]

In Catholicism and in Orthodoxy there is a difference between the Worship owed God alone (which includes adoration, sacrifice and I forget the other) Latria and that which is the reverence and devotion given to the Blessed Virgin, Hyperdulia and that given to the Saints, Dulia.

Only in the Catholic mind.

It's more like being sort of pregnant, but you're still pregnant.

And it's still worship.

[metmom]

God can do anything He wants.

God cannot do anything He wants. Omnipotent means all powerful but that does not give Him the ability to deny Himself, lie, or change.

That argument is a false premise and anything built on it is not going to come to a correct conclusion.

[RnMomof7]

Catholics state that they do not worship Mary. People who are NOT Catholic, or who are failed Catholics, or who are excommunicated, say differently. Whom to believe, whom to believe....
And frankly, there is nothing to "prove." Catholics don't worship Mary. Believe it or not

What is the PRACTICAL difference between veneration and worship to you?

[metmom]

Whatever God did to cause Mary to allegedly be born sinless to sinful parents, He could have done for Jesus to be born of a sinful mother.

If Jesus had to be born of a sinless mother to remain sinless when He is God Himself, then in order for Mary, a mere human to be born sinless, her parents would have had to be sinless as well, and back and back....

[metmom]

Proverbs 8: 22-35

Either that is not about Mary or Mary is indeed claimed to be a deity by the Catholic church.

[metmom]

ROTFLOL!!!

I saw a cat go up to investigate one of those little singing table top Christmas trees once, the kind that were motion activated.

Hysterical....

[metmom]

Matthew 5: 10-12 “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

“Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

[Deo volente]

God cannot do anything He wants. Omnipotent means all powerful but that does not give Him the ability to deny Himself, lie, or change.
That argument is a false premise and anything built on it is not going to come to a correct conclusion.

Why would God want to deny Himself, lie, or change in any way? He is All-Good and Unchangeable. He would never "want" to do those things. He does not have the "ability" to do those things because He cannot sin or change, but that doesn't mean He is not Omnipotent. It's a theological term and has a certain meaning. If you want to nitpick and argue the semantics, well, have fun. I won't be joining in.

So yes, God can do anything He wants. The statement is not a false premise at all.

[RnMomof7]

No one except Christ could keep the whole law perfectly. When Jesus summarized them into two laws, that did not make them easier, it made them harder .. No one can love God with their whole heart, if the did the would never sin against Him.. no one can love their neighbor as themselves.. if they could they would never sin against them .

Rabbi Akiva was being combed with burning rakes by the Romans when he said he had said the Shema every day, repeating the commandment. Under torture unto death, he rejoiced that he now knew that he had kept it

And muslims blow themselves up.. because they believe the lie of Islam.. This man was judging himself based on human judgement , He had to stand before Christ for that final judgement, it was not his to do

[metmom]

Thank you for reminding me of one of the reasons why I left the Catholic church.

The Catholics I worked and grew up with talked just like that.

There were very few who lived what they preached.

Catholic Charities is only the name of an organization. Based on what I’ve seen from you an other Catholics, *Catholic Charity* is just an oxymoron in the individual level.

And for the record, no, I am not hitting the abuse button on this. Let it stand for all to see.

[metmom]

Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the ENTIRE revealed truth about God?

That has been addressed time without count.

At this point, it's merely a strawman. Nobody ever claimed it and for Catholics to continue to present it as factual is intellectually dishonest.

It falls into the *Have you stopped beating your wife?* category.

All it does is demonstrate the weakness of the Catholic position that they have to harp on something that is not true that they made up about someone else.

Of course, that's nothing new from Catholics either. The Catholics I know in person have done the same thing.

[RnMomof7]

The subject of Proverbs 8 is Wisdom.. one of the attributes of God.

Literal Translation from the hebrew

Jehovah possessed me — the beginning of His way, Before His works since then.

The subject of that passage is the wisdom Of God..

[Natural Law]

"Now please show us in Scripture where we are to believe something about God and salvation that is NOT contained in the Scriptures."

Those versus testify to the authority of the Scripture but do not claim they are all inclusive or even that all are necessary or equal. The Synoptic Gospels alone are sufficient, yet God gave us the entire Bible. He gave us the Tradition as well.

[narses]

And it's still worship.

Only in the minds of the deluded bigots who cluster like maggots on rotting flesh telling the Catholic faithful and each other lies about what Catholics believe. For those poor deluded souls, and for the satanic pagans who sometimes haunt these faux debates, whatever the One True Church does is hateful. It becomes just noise.

[narses]

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.

[fabian]

You are actually very misinformaned and so is most of the church. THat is because the church has lost it’s way and lost the power of the holy spirit. If you would like that strength again, like you had as a child..go to fhu.com where the Be Still exercise will put you on the path to true freedom from sin. What you have done, unwittingly . is neutered the power of Jesus. Once the bad spirit is cleanesed, and it takes some time often, then there simply is no more will to sin because it was ITS will to sin the whole time!
a. Whoever abides in Him does not sin: Since sin is lawlessness, a disregard for God (1 John 3:4), and since Jesus came to take away our sins (1 John 3:5), and since in Jesus there is no sin (1 John 3:5), then to abide in Him means to not sin.