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.
Do you consider Presbyterians members of a “cult?”
You know nothing of the Catholic faith and what it teaches.
I’ll look at just one of your so called Catholic beliefs.
“salvation by good works;”
No dear heart, salvation is by grace alone. Did you mean justification? Yes Catholics believe we are justified both by faith and by works of love (charity.) Both of which are given impetus by God’s grace. It is the way our will responds to the grace of God. We could not have faith or charity if we did not first receive His sanctifying grace. We do not have these because of our merits but because of His merits. But it has never been taught by the Church that good works save us. Justify us, yes. Save us no.
By the way, Alter Christie is not the same thing as “another Christ.”
And you now that how?
me too
I disagree with Cronos that OPC is a cult, even if some of its members act in a disgraceful fashion. They are simply an orthodox (as defined in the Reformed faith)Calvinist denomination. I think they came about in response to the heresies arising in the USPC such as increasing acceptance of same sex relationships and other abandonments of Christian moral teachings.
Do you consider Presbyterians members of a "cult?"
Ronald Reagan was a Presbyterian. Dwight Eisenhower, Andrew Jackson, Condoleezza Rice, John Wayne, Bob Dole, Bill Frist, Jimmy Stewart, Sally Ride, Dan Quayle, Dick Armey, Donald Rumsfeld, Sam Walton, J. Edgar Hoover, Philip Anschutz, George Allen, Henry Luce, Karen Hughes, Robert Louis Stevenson, Stonewall Jackson and Ann Coulter were/are all Presbyterian.
Are/were they all members of a "non-Christian cult?"
Thanks for reading for yourself and coming to your own conclusions.
The OPC differs from the larger PCUSA in that the OPC doesn’t ordain women. As I’ve said before, I could just as happily worship in a solid Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Episcopalian, Congregational, non-denominational church where the word of God is preached in truth and light.
And I have. Many times. It’s not such a difficult thing to discern. Where the word of God is preached in truth, there is light and the congregation benefits. Where the word of God is held in near disdain and the doctrines of men are taught instead, there is darkness.
And those given eyes to see can tell the differnce.
By the grace of God alone.
He objects because the darkness can not stand the light
You're way behind. We've gone far beyond the original topic and we're now engaged in a holy war concerning what color card board hats we will wear when we reach "Fushal."
After arriving at Fushal, we will partake of all manner of hotdogs, doughnuts and other savory delights and we shall wear hats of great majesty, though they be made of colored cardboard and have humorous arrows through the top.
One faction believes the hats should be red while the other group believes they should be blue.
Puleeeze, the lies are self evident to anyone who reads Calvin or witnesses the un-Christian escapades of his followers. The lies are too extensive for a single post to contain and a rehash by me would only make me want another shower.
The Gospel is this "Good News." It is as Christ proclaimed by making His own the following passage from Isaiah:
The Spirit of the LORD God is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me to bring good tidings to the afflicted; he has sent me to bind up the broken hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound; to proclaim the year of the LORD'S favor.
Subsidiarity holds that government should undertake only those initiatives which exceed the capacity of individuals or private groups acting independently
But a certain class today see individual or small private groups as the ignorant masses and those who hold to Biblical morals as dangerous, and that they are the elite who know what is best for us, and whose rule should be imposed, for our own good.
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.
But who/what defines "good" is the question.
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.
Same question as above.
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.
The authority of men of God in the Bible who provided new authoritative doctrine was established by their conformity to what was prior established as from God and by Gods manifest power. Thus false leaders claim to be both but fail when examined by Berean type souls and method, and the man of sin will mislead those who by his working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders. Of whom we are forewarned (without damning those hold to a preterist type eschatology)
Not only is that mind-reading and against the rules of the FR RF, I and anyone on these threads can easily learn for themselves what the RCC teaches from the mouths of Roman Catholic apologists.
And sadly, those words often do not reflect Christ's teaching in the Scriptures.
No dear heart, salvation is by grace alone. Did you mean justification? Yes Catholics believe we are justified both by faith and by works of love
Let's drop the smarmy sarcasm, shall we?
RCs say "salvation is by grace alone" and then in the very same sentence go on to say men are "justified (saved; made right before God) by faith and by (their own) works of love."
Can you not see the contradiction?
Either men are saved by GRACE ALONE or men are saved by grace AND by their own good works of charity.
Rome believes the latter, to its shame.
Alter Christie is not the same thing as “another Christ.”
Tell that to your priestcraft...
"Simply stated, the Catholic priest is another Christ. Through his ordination he has been granted the amazing gift of being a channel of divine grace for the eternal salvation of those he come into contact with — both in his official ministry and in his personal life..."
"a divine channel for salvation???"
Faith in Christ is the "divine channel" by which men are saved individually according to God's grace through the work of the Holy Spirit within them. One on one. No interlopers required.
Magick and alchemy are not a solid basis on which to peg your salvation. Read the Bible and know for certain that there is "only one God and one mediator between God and men, the man, Christ Jesus."
And He is enough. Thank God.
Yes...yes...and what is that "good news?"
Can you hear it now?
What is the good news Christ preached?
Do you think believing in "another Christ" and a "co-redeemer" comes down to a difference in color?
I think you don’t understand the reference.
I wasn’t “trying.” I posted his idiotic musing.
According to God’s word, preaching the good news of Christ risen is how men may know their salvation has been won by Christ on the cross.
God determined this blessed understanding would come by words and sentences and concepts preached and recorded in the writings of the Apostles.
Frank thought it better to stare at his navel and “preach to the animals” and “without words.”
Good luck with that.
You are going to have to be a lot more specific than that. Of the following list there are more than a few cults, most notable is the OPC.
Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church
Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church in Pakistan
Evangelical Presbyterian Church
Free Presbyterian Church (Australia)
Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland
Presbyterian Church of Australia
Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia
Presbyterian Reformed Church
Reformed Presbyterian Church of Australia
Southern Presbyterian Church
Westminster Presbyterian Church of Australia
Australian Free Church
Bible Presbyterian Church
Church of Scotland
Church of South India
Council of Revival Ministers
Cumberland Presbyterian Center
Cumberland Presbyterian Church
Cumberland Presbyterian Church in America
Evangelical Presbyterian Church (Australia)
Evangelical Presbyterian Church (Ireland)
Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England and Wales
Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Ukraine
Free Church of Scotland (Continuing)
Free Church of Scotland (post-1900)
Free Presbyterian Church (Australia)
Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland
Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster
Free Reformed Churches of Australia
Grace Presbyterian Church of New Zealand
Greek Evangelical Church
Igreja Presbiteriana de Moçambique
Indonesia Christian Church
Presbyterian Church in Malaysia
Non-subscribing Presbyterian Church of Ireland
Orthodox Presbyterian Church (US)
Orthodox Presbyterian Church of New Zealand
Church of Pakistan
United Presbyterian Church of Pakistan
Presbyterian Church in Ireland
Presbyterian Church of East Africa
Presbyterian Church of Korea
Presbyterian Church in Taiwan
Presbyterian Church in the United States
Presbyterian Church in the United States of America
Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand
Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia
Presbyterian Church of Nigeria
Presbyterian Church of Pakistan
Presbyterian Church of Wales
Presbyterian Reformed Church (Australia)
Reformed Churches of New Zealand
Reformed Presbyterian Church – Hanover Presbytery
Southern Presbyterian Church (Australia)
Synod of Otago and Southland
United Church of Christ in the Philippines
United Free Church of Scotland
United Presbyterian Church
Uniting Church in Australia
Uniting Presbyterian Church in Southern Africa
GB - The main point of contention on these threads is the portrayal of Catholic belief as something other than what it is and willful repeated misinterpretation of Catholic Catechism after many corrections.
In Catholicism the term "alter Christi" is used to describe the actions of the priest who, during the mass, acts in the place of Christ in the recreation of the Last Supper. It does not mean, as Dr. Eck states over and over again, that the Priest is an another Christ.
Similarly, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is very, very clear that there is only one mediator, Jesus Christ. It does state that Mary participated in our Salvation by agreeing to birth and raise Jesus.
Worship is more than sacrifice.
There is nothing anywhere that says that there’s not a sacrifice involved than it is not worship. That is, again, manipulating definitions. It’s just hair splitting to try to make those kind of fine distinctions.
Bowing down, lighting candles, and praying to someone has enough elements of worship for it to be legitimately called that.
All throughout the OT, people were condemned for bowing down to images and praying to others besides God. Do so at your own risk.
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.