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.
Yes, I would pray for intersession from any saint or apostle for I need all the help I can get. But your example would not lead me to pray for intersession via this lady because her status is not known to me. Jesus did the same for several others such as the one who touched his garment but that did not mean she made it to heaven.
As I would pray for other I would also ask the same for me.
> “Can you not agree that Jesus calls us to unite in HIM, because of a great plan?????”
.
Amen!
But he also made plain in his word that all of the congregations were deeply corrupted with tares, that only He and his angels could separate.
I think there are a few fonts, sizes and colors you didn’t use in your rant.
I am sure you can go back and give your bash the real emphasis missing from that one.
Much of the extravagant language about Mary comes from medieval writers seemingly trying to outdo each other in their eulogies attempting to allergorize every statement they found in the OT even to rewriting Scripture to do so.
Of course it is. You promote your church over Jesus, and by doing so you diminish Christ. You promote the corrupt church over Christ’s Church, and so diminish Christ.
But this is America, and you’re free to believe what you want.
May Christ increase, and may Rome decrease. Indeed, may Rome go to hell, for Christ’s sake.
This seems to be another example of mind-reading and potty language by the usual suspects.
Your more than welcome to not infer anything from the story of the wine but for me the facts are:
Wine was out
Mary Asked Jesus to resolve the problem
Jesus protested
Mary told the servants to follow Jesus directions
Jesus did it
Thus Mary knew Jesus would “Honor thy Mother” so for me cases closed.
Personally, I believe that He is purifying His Bride.
“...just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy ...( Ephesians 5)
What unmitigated balderdash.
Ever read Hebrews?
Paul outlines how throughout Scripture, RIGHTEOUSNESS was IMPUTED BASED ON FAITH.
The individual was not perfect--GOD'S GRACE DECLARED THEM RIGHTEOUS IN HIS EYES based on their faith AND ON HIS GRACE.
GOD'S GRACE TO OVERLOOK THEIR SINS AND FLAWS.
That's pretty basic Bible; very basic theology; very basic Christianity.
The unwarranted, UNBIBLICAL insulting to her Mary worshipping claptrap is from the pit of hell.
By your own admission, twice now at last count, you are not a Catholic.
What are you doing on this thread? It doesn't appear that it's any thing more than stirring the pot and provoking hard feelings against Protestants.
> “BIGGER than we have ever seen before....and it’s time to work together”
.
And we do, on the real issues, like abortion, school prayer, the primacy of Christ in the public square, etc.
I’ve sent considerable funding to Catholic orgs that fight abortion effectively, for example.
Where the Gospel describes His early years, Mary would see Jesus do some unusual things. On the way back from Egypt, He wandered off from the caravan; they found Him in a temple amazing the teachers and scribes with His understanding. According to the Gospel, she "treasured it in her heart."
I believe that meant she didn't discuss the matters with others, but pondered on them.
She knew he was the Messiah so I think she expected some pretty amazing things...
>>The RCC’s bible is their catechism, man made doctrine/traditions. <<
Unless and until you are working from the Bible in its original languages, you are merely interpreting it (and even then it is interpretation since so much is expressed in stories and parables).
It is the height of hubris (not unknown amongst those who little to nothing about Catholicism) to suggest that another interpretation, based on over a thousand years of study, is somehow less than your handful of years in what could best be described as a bastardized version: be it the King James (considered by scholars to be the worst translation ever) or, worse still, the modern English version.
How’s your Aramaic? Hebrew? Greek?
Good point.
Luke 1: 41 And it came to pass , that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: 42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said , Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. 43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For, lo , as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. 45 And blessed is she that believed : for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord. 46 And Mary said , My soul doth magnify the Lord, 47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. 48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold , from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed .
1. The underlined portions of verses 45 & 47 demonstrate that Mary is a saved believer. Therefore, according to the perseverence of the saints, there is no possibility that she would fall.
2. Elizabeth did not say that Mary was the mother of her dear relative. She did say, the Mother of MY Lord. By the Holy Spirit, she was testifying that Mary is the Mother of the Incarnate 2d Person of the Holy Trinity. By the Trinitarian Doctrine, Jesus is "My Lord and My God." (John 20:28 KJV And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.)
3. When Mary, inspired for the writing of the holy scripture, spoke that "all generations shall call me blessed", she was not speaking of unbelievers, many of whom have spoken terrible things and insinuations about her, even in her own day. Mary was speaking of belivers, that they would "call her blessed."
Are our words about her words that fulfill her prophecy, and if they are not, then why do we have trouble speaking what is simply in fulfillment of God's Word.
Mary, the Mother of My Lord and My God, is Blessed!
That’s a great start!! ;-)))
Looks like we are both on the WAY....following elements of the plan.
;-)))
Unless Paul is located in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, or James, we can be fairly certain his words won’t be read. Or heeded.
What was your point of posting this article? And right before the feast of the Immaculate Conception. All you did was cause dissension among everyone here. Not something a truly religious person would do.
You seem to really resent Catholicism. Hopefully, you’ll find your way back.
LOL! Seriously, they'd have to truly have knowledge of good and evil. Unless they partook of the fruit, they just know what's expected without assigning moralality.
Technically, dogs are "without sin."
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.