Was Mary Sinless?

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.

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 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.

We are not justified by works either.

Galatians 3:1-14 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? 5Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— just as Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"?

Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them." Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for "The righteous shall live by faith." 12But the law is not of faith, rather "The one who does them shall live by them." Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"— so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

I agree.

Many thousands of people have been introduced to Christ in lasting relationship with him;

have been healed;

have had their marriages saved and healed;

have stopped abusing their children and spouses;

have crawled out of depression; been delivered of depression;

have deepened their spiritual disciplines and deepened their walks with Jesus as Lord;

have become more caring and giving toward those around them.

have overcome serious childhood abuse problems and attachment disorder problems

have become more filled with Holy Spirit and sensitive to His leading in their lives . . .

because of Holy Spirit’s work through Joyce Meyers.

Folks can throw rocks at her if they wish. I wouldn’t recommend it. Regardless of her humanness, God clearly has a different attitude toward her.

One can be on God’s side about Joyce Meyers or on satan’s side.

Rick Joyner asserts in THE HARVEST that there are two ‘ministries’ before the Throne of God.

Satan’s accusations

particularly unwarranted, unfitting or Jesus Blood covered incidents . . . sins . . .

and

Christians’ intercessions.

One of those is not a good side to be on.

God is in behalf of prosperity.

HE says HE will not withhold any good thing from those who walk uprightly . . . etc.

HE says HE would that we prosper and be in health EVEN AS OUR SOUL PROSPERS.

Most folks don’t meet the conditions.

And, God has other priorities in some lives involving training and purifying at different stages.

Making assumptions is hazardous.

I think Joyce has a fitting attitude and teaching regarding the “prosperity Scriptures.” I have not observed her going off the deep end with them.

St. Francis did more than navel gaze. "From this chapter Francis sent some of his friars on missions to the infidels in Tunisia, Morocco, and Spain, while he himself undertook one to the Saracens of Egypt and Syria, embarking with eleven friars from Ancona in June, 1219. At the city of Damietta on the Nila Delta, which the crusaders were besieging, Francis was deeply shocked at the profligacy, the cynicism, and the lack of discipline of the soldiers of the cross. When in August the leaders prepared to attack, he predicted failure and tried to dissuade them from the attempt. The Christians were driven back with the slaughter of six thousand men, yet they continued the siege, and at last took the city. Meanwhile, a number of the soldiers had pledged themselves to live by Francis' rule. He also paid several visits to the Saracen leader, Melek-el-Kamil, Sultan of Egypt. There is a story to the effect that he first went among the enemy with only Brother Illuminato, calling out, "Sultan! Sultan!" When he was brought before the Sultan and asked his errand, Francis replied boldly, "I am sent by the Most High God, to show you and your people the way of salvation by announcing to you the truths of the Gospel." Discussion followed, and other audiences. The Sultan, somewhat moved, invited Francis to stay with him. "If you and your people," said Francis, "will accept the word of God, I will with joy stay with you. If you yet waver between Christ and Mohammed, order a fire kindled and I will go into it with your priests that you may see which is the true faith." The Sultan replied that he did not think any of his would dare to enter the fire, and he would not accept Francis' condition for fear of upsetting the people. He offered him many presents, which Francis refused. Fearing finally that some of his Moslems might desert to the Christians, he sent Francis, under guard, back to the camp." I have not included his work amongst the lepers and other poorest of the poor. I am not sure if you regard such things as Christian acts.

It could only work if each and every member of the group were a true believer in Jesus Christ.

They were just that and it didn't work actually. Some dissension set in and a bit later came both religious and government persecution. The Disciples tried it. Acts ch 3-5 I think.

The rest is just a general response not at you or anyone personally. People of leadership positions can make very outrageous statements. Here's a real whopper which should have any Christian raising questions and saying this is an outrage. I do not believe in nor follow the creed of the words I am quoting.

I, too, have made a wee-little book from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of d blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw. They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognize one feature.

His religious beliefs were primarily that of a Deist. A person who in effect believes GOD created heavens and earth then abandoned it. Yet his political writings were the words which were written, signed by colony delegates, and handed to the crown, in 1776. Would any Freeper call Thomas Jefferson an enemy of this nation or a religious hieratic for that matter? A person doing so might get banned or at the least get highly flamed for such. Many have quoted him. Few realize that this book he speaks of is the bible of the Unitarian Church. A true corruption of GOD's Word removing the Divinity of Jesus Christ as well as His resurrection. Jefferson is being treated far more kindly by Protestants than a Pope who denies none of The Gospel.

Now I suppose some could make the argument Jefferson was not the leader of a church but a political leader. True enough. But he did pen a document calling it religious text.

Many times church leaders do not make good political leaders and vice versa because the missions and laws of each institution are vastly different in nature. Thomas Jefferson was a great POTUS but would any of you want his as a leader of your church meaning your Priest, Preacher, Sunday School Teacher, or Deacon? Likely not because his theological beliefs are 180 from yours Protestant or Catholic. That is how radical the religious views in this nation changed in 200 years.

Many churches possibly in our lifetime will fall for the deception of the Antichrist as in a charismatic leader a disciple of Satan to come and for a short time rule the world. This person will deceive many in ALL churches including many leaders as well as members maybe even me or you if we aren't careful.

Despite what he is reported to have said he is not of the Antichrist any more than Billy Graham or Jerry Falwell could have been both BTW were DEMs IIRC. Yes they too had their public boo boos.

When you see a Pope call for the abominations {such as openly Gay clergy and church sanctioned same sex marriages etc} now being seen in many Protestant Churches to be allowed and the falling away then get back with me. When you see the Pope calling for removal of prayer from all public functions get back with me. When you see the Pope supporting abortion on demand get back with me. I only wish more protestant church leaders would gather courage and speak their voices in opposition to the wrong doings of government.

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.

If that is truly what the OPC is, then I agree with you that they are certainly NOT a cult. In fact, I admire any denomination that, in its desire to remain true to God's word, breaks away from the dominant hierarchy who refuses to. I also see how behavior that is "disgraceful" belongs wholly to the individual posting and I do not judge the faith of entire groups by the actions of that individual.

That is kind of how I view what really happened during the Reformation. If the Catholic Church had not excommunicated the Reformers, who had legitimate grievances, and had gone back to the true orthodox faith found in the Bible I doubt that I, nor most former Catholics, would have had any reason to leave.

And you show your commitment to... your own infallibility?
You can produce links to sites that “refute” what I've said, I can produce links to sites that “refute” your links.
Again, it all depends on who you believe, or as you put it, who your “commitment” is to.

I believe the Church has a guarantee by the Holy Spirit that it cannot teach error regarding faith and morals. You believe in... your own infallibility?

I posted the canons from 382, 419, and 1542 and they all included the deuterocanonical books. Here are a few more quotes that disagree with your experts:

“The council of Hippo in 393, and the third (according to another reckoning the sixth) council of Carthage in 397, under the influence of Augustine, who attended both, fixed the catholic canon of the Holy Scriptures, including the Apocrypha of the Old Testament.... The New Testament canon is the same as ours. This decision of the transmarine church however, was subject to ratification; and the concurrence of the Roman see it received when Innocent I and Gelasius I a.d. 414) repeated the same index of biblical books. This canon remained undisturbed till the sixteenth century, and was sanctioned by the council of Trent at its fourth session.”
(Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, Vol. III, Ch 9)

“A council probably held at Rome in 382 under St. Damasus gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament (also known as the ‘Gelasian Decree’ because it was reproduced by Gelasius in 495), which is identical with the list given at Trent.”
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2nd ed., edited by F.L. Cross & E.A. Livingstone, Oxford Univ. Press, 1983, p.232

And again, from the Catholic Encyclopedia: “the essential part of which is now generally attributed to a synod convoked by Pope Damasus in the year 382. The other is the Canon of Innocent I, sent in 405 to a Gallican bishop in answer to an inquiry. Both contain all the deuterocanonicals, without any distinction, and are identical with the catalogue of Trent.”

You made the "negative contention" for Rome- history speaks for Rome. For the umpteenth time, the only thing I misspoke about was incorrectly stating that Luther was the first to challenge it- I should have phrased it that Luther's challenge was serious enough that the Church infallibly defined it's canon.

I have not resorted to calling you any names and I resent the implication. You have your interpretation of scripture and history, and I have mine, as does everyone else.

“I believe the Church has a guarantee by the Holy Spirit that it cannot teach error regarding faith and morals. You believe in... your own infallibility?”

That is another typically unwarranted Catholic claim, as unlike Rome claiming she is infallible whenever she speaks according to her infallibly declared formula, I have provided evidence from Catholic as well as scholarly sources which refutes your primary contentions with me, as well as your remaining argument.

You have acknowledged Luther was not the first to challenge the list which Trent ratified, and that there was disagreement among Catholicism until Trent settled it, and thus there was not infallible definition prior to Trent.

Yet despite my showing you recent research that shows that the Tridentine canon was not exactly the same as Carthage (and the former ratified that of Florence), and that the Gelasian decree (Decretum Gelasianum) which the gives 382 date and list authority, is not historically authoritative, you still post old scholarship which is ignorant of these problems (if it was not, such encyclopedic sources could hardly have failed to mention them). As regards the latter,

In 1794 F. Arevalo, the editor of Sedulius, started the theory that the first three of these five chapters were really the decrees of a Roman Council held a century earlier than Gelasius, under Damasus, in 382 A.D...

It had been Professor v. Dobschütz’s intention to publish the Damasine and Gelasian forms side by side (i. e. I, II, III and III, IV, V, c. III being common to both), but in the course of his investigation he came to very different conclusions. According to v. Dobschütz all five chapters belong to the same original work, which is no genuine decree or letter either of Damasus or Gelasius, but a pseudonymous literary production of the first half of the sixth century (between 519 and 553).

There can, I think, be little doubt that v. Dobschütz has made out his case. The really decisive point is that in I 3, in the part most directly associated with Damasus, there is a quotation of some length from Augustine in Joh. ix 7 (Migne, xxxv 146l).1 As Augustine was writing about 416, it is evident that the Title Incipit Concilium Vrbis Romae sub Damaso Papa de Explanatione Fidei is of no historical value.

The proof that the document is not a real Decretal of Gelasius or any other Pope is almost as decisive, if not quite so startling... - http://www.tertullian.org/articles/burkitt_gelasianum.htm

As for being identical, Hippo and Carthage include a book as canonical that Trent did not. THE RC response is that Trent passed later passed over in silence (due to naming conventions the issue can be confusing). http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2505

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.