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.

[Grizzled Bear]

oh, the Vatican is lovely, but Rome is a historian, art lover and architecture lover’s delight.

Yet it's worldly beauty will pale against the new Jerusalem with streets of gold, gates of precious stones and, upon His throne, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Our temporal temples, statues and paintings are nothing compared to the coming city of our Lord.

[Cronos]

True enough, however, you pointed out that a few Catholics. Similarly a few Baptists (Westboro etc.) don’t indicate the majority. However, in the case of the OPC, ALL of them spout hatred, continuously 24-7 and never post anything positive about the lover of Christ, they never post any sympathy for Christians being persecuted in the Middle-East (say), never any prayers for anyone else. This is pretty indicative of the cult as a whole

[Cronos]

You do of course, realise that the OPC is not a Church like the Baptists or Lutherans or Anglicans etc. are — the OPC is a non-Christian cult, just like eht Jehovah’s Witnesses or LDS.org.

[Grizzled Bear]

The problem faced with many Catholics is similar to that with Muslims.

Have any of you ever met Christians who had converted out of Islam? Many, who had been extremely devout to their former beliefs, claim Jesus appeared to them.

The fact that these particular men were very comfortable in their lives and lost much while risking their lives gives truth to their testimony.

[1000 silverlings]

Dont think heads and spiritual powers arent all the time jockeying for the power that comes with being antiChrist. Evil is like the serpent, very attractive. the big mansion for the One is already built in Jerusalem, just waiting for the appearance. Pope Prada would be there in a minute if invited, as would untold others. To serve man.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

~~”Dr. E’s posts of hate”~~

My posts aren’t the ones being deleted for breaking the FR RF rules.

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church is a very conservative denomination. The OPC does not believe it is infallible, as the RCC believes of itself. The OPC, as all historic Protestant and Baptist Christian churches do, believes the inspired word of God to be our only rule of faith and practice.

Thank you, God, from whom all blessings flow. Thank you, Jesus Christ, our only mediator between God and men. Thank you, Holy Spirit, for guiding our study of the Scriptures wherein we may learn of our salvation by God’s grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone for God’s glory alone.

Roman Catholics, you included, have yet to tell us what the Gospel is. What is the Good News Christ preached, Cronos?

And once again, thanks for giving me the opportunity to post its website where anyone can read for themselves the OPC’s Scriptural beliefs and practices...

http://www.opc.org

[daniel1212]

The mistake of such can easily be that of creating a model of the perfect church - in which communal living is that primary distinctive, focusing on Acts 2:45-47; 4:32.34-37, and by which they consciously see and contrast themselves as superior to all others - and which model they promote and focus on becoming, more so it seems than focusing on Christ and exalting him, (which i think Rose Creek village tends to do), and preaching the gospel which saves sinners wherever they may be.

And or they follow a Christ-like figure or body which fosters or requires implicit obedience and squash its quashes sincere questioning of its teachings.

But what i think most attempts to replicate the year the church leave out is that the first church was led by apostles whose leadership was manifested by unselfish devotion to Christ, and prayer in the word, (Acts 6:3) with holiness and preaching which conformed to and complemented that which was written, and whose Divine authority was established by powerful supernatural attestation from God.

And that it was not all about holding all things common and living and eating their meals as a body, or simply about prayer and teaching, but about the contrite and reverential hearts of the converted, and positive as well as “negative” miracles done by men whose hearts were the same.

“And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.”

“And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.”

” And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.”

“And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon’s porch. And of the rest durst no man join himself to them: but the people magnified them.” (Acts 2:43; 4:31,33; 5:12,13)

However, the inclusion of the latter does not promote what is typically seen today among those who believe in supernatural gifts, with its emphasis on health and wealth and leaders who live in mansions or five-star hotels.

[RnMomof7]

Try it again, only this time from the premise that God love and not some kind of celestial con man, pulling a Three-card Monty trick on His creatures.

Your description is the human one..that is how that rabbi could judge himself

[Grizzled Bear]

True enough, however, you pointed out that a few Catholics. Similarly a few Baptists (Westboro etc.) don’t indicate the majority.

I'm not at all familiar with the "OPC." However, I do not consider Westboro even remotely "Christian."

Regardless, God wants our spiritual fruits, not religious nuts.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

So you can’t provide us with any “lies of Calvin,” only more meaningless, assaulting verbiage.

If and when you ever get around to reading Calvin and somehow you discover some “lie” of his, please tell us.

Until then, what is the Good News preached by Jesus Christ?

[evangmlw]

Yes indeed, I’ve even heard former Muslims preach the gospel from a pulpit. Never said this was not a reality. The sad reality is, most do not and die lost. It’s a beautiful thing when anyone comes to Christ and they are my brethren regardless of where they came from.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

It’s right up there with “preach without words,” a daffy prospect so beloved by our RC FRiends.

[lastchance]

““..an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good”

Since it does not say whose law we look to the second part of the clause to see what principles the proposed law would operate under. If you look up the meaning of subsidiarity in Catholic teaching you will find this:
This is from Wikipedia is a concise understandable defintion.:

“Subsidiarity holds that government should undertake only those initiatives which exceed the capacity of individuals or private groups acting independently. Functions of government, business, and other secular activities should be as local as possible. If a complex function is carried out at a local level just as effectively as on the national level, the local level should be the one to carry out the specified function. The principle is based upon the autonomy and dignity of the human individual, and holds that all other forms of society, from the family to the state and the international order, should be in the service of the human person. Subsidiarity assumes that these human persons are by their nature social beings, and emphasizes the importance of small and intermediate-sized communities or institutions, like the family, the church, and voluntary associations, as mediating structures which empower individual action and link the individual to society as a whole.

So right there we see that local institutions both private and public should be the chief providers of services and as such would also be the ones levying laws to meet local needs. Or (more helpfully) relaxing existing laws to make it easier for private organizations to meet local needs.

It would be very difficult for a centralized governing authority acting under its own jurisdiction to fullfill the principle of subsdiarity. It would be too big and too removed for one thing. For another it would not be answerable to local control. It would not rely on cooperation and equal input from particpating nations. It does not meet the criteria for subsdiarity. It can’t.

The second principle addressed is that of solidarity. Like subsidiarity it is based on the Catholic teaching on the dignity of persons. That individuals working together in free association can and do accomplish goals that advance the common good. That can hardly be said about a one world government that compels individuals to contribute their labors and the fruits of those labors for the good of the State.

The law regulating such an authority would therefore have to be answerable to National laws in order to meet the criteria for subsdiarity and solidarity. Any international law formed to regulate the authority would have to be subservient to National laws and would only be invoked if individual nations were unable to deal with a current crisis.

Now do I think it would be possible for any global authority no matter how well intentioned to not usurp authority from sovereign nations? No I don’t. Do I think it is possible for such a global authority to fall into the hands of idealogues who will advance principles contrary to Western democracies? Oh boy do I.

And that is what I think is dangerous about the Pope’s musing on this. Yes it would be wonderful if we could all band together and deal with the latest food crisis in Africa. But since the one of the root causes of such crisis is usually the corrupt doings of an tyrannical despot all the aid in the world will just be so much chaff in the wind. And such crisis usually gives rise to cries for even a bigger power grab.

Keep problem solving local and keep it within NGO’s. That is the best way to accomplish true peace and justice. Save inter government reactions for military operations. That is what armed forces are there for.

[RnMomof7]

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 He hardley seems to have judged himself, you are reading your own words into his mouth. All that is said is that he rejoiced knowign that he had kept it.

HE THOUGHT he had kept it.. The one that will really judge that is Jesus Christ.. self delusion is a pretty powerful thing..

This rabbi called the word of God a lie

Ecc 7:20 For [there is] not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

1Ki 8:46 If they sin against thee, (for [there is] no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near;

Psa 143:2 And enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified.

[1000 silverlings]

The Catholic church group that worships Mary is a pagan cult. the Catholic churches that are socialist, progressive, worship mankind, so they're a cult. The Charismatics, if they are only pretending to be led by the HS or are led by demons, are a cult.

Mormons who worship Joseph Smith, are a cult

Individuals and churches who follow Christ and the Word of God, are Christians.

[lastchance]

Are you trying to quote St. Francis of Assisi?

[lastchance]

Good thing reading the Pope’s mind gets a pass on this forum.

[the lastbestlady]

Yes it does...She is without sin.

[1000 silverlings]

The rabbi denied that Jesus was the Messiah and followed another. He was a pharisee that kept the Law, as he apparently said, by his own will, no help from God. After the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, no man, NO MAN, comes to the Father except thru Him.

To compare a blind pharisee's righteousness (his own, not from God)to Jesus Christ, by a supposed Christian ( I dont know)shows a complete misunderstanding of Christianity, not even a basic understanding of the NT, let alone the Gospel

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The bigger threat comes from politicians and activist judges who are trying to foist Sharia and militant homosexual policy onto us against our will.

And those who enable them...

When I turned away from Catholicism

Congratulations. My husband did, too. From darkness to light.

Instead of targetting the Roman Church, we should focus on crushing socialism and communism in our own house.

Roman Catholics believe themselves to be Christian, but they define "Christianity" as something foreign to Scriptural truth, i.e. priests as "another Christ;" Mary as "co-redeemer;" salvation by good works; forgiveness by priests; teaching various extra-Biblical doctrines of men; the insufficiency of Scripture; the elevated priesthood; the re-sacrifice of Christ at every mass; the bizarre "infallibility" of their pope; and the alarming blurring of sanctification with justification, etc.

That is not Christianity. Christians are called to preach the Gospel in truth. That's all any of us are trying to do on these threads.

"Be not afraid; only believe." -- Mark 5:36