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.
The WBC uses the term in it’s name “B” —> I don’t believe they are really baptist in any way either, so good we both agree on something!
And why do you post that thread as an example of anything having to do with the OPC?
I have no idea what church that author belongs to and you don’t either.
“You never post Scripture to support your fables and superstitions.”
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.
Great question.
Rome just makes things up.
What was the good news Christ preached?
Well, I don’t know enough of the prosperity gospel to comment much, but I’ll put my two cents on your statement “God is on behalf of prosperity” — that should never be taken to mean (and I don’t believe you do) that God makes you wealthy and poor people do not have God on their side. That conclusion is utterly wrong in my humble opinion. And, I’ve never heard J.M. say that (in my limited watching of her TV shows)
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.
That Scripture does not support the anti-Scriptural belief of Rome that Mary is a sinless “co-redeemer” and “another mediator.”
Mary was a sinner saved by Christ, just like the rest of us.
Funny that tonight RCs have posted that prayer in response to nearly every question asked of them. They just love Mary so much she seems to be the answer, alright.
However, it does not suffice.
What is the good news Christ preached?
What was the good news Christ preached?
Jesus Christ TOLD us what the good news was. Have you not read those verses?
lolol. It appears to really frazzle Roman Catholic apologists that Protestants are an actual group, unified in their belief that Scripture is man’s only rule of faith and practice.
To the point now where RC apologists are angry that Protestants display any sense of unity whatsoever.
Protestants are Trinitarian Christians who kneel to none but Christ, who believe God’s word is our authority in this life written for our sanctification, who believe all men are fallen and no one is saved unless he has been purchased with the blood of Christ alone by God’s grace alone for God’s glory alone.
Semper Reformanda. Get used to it.
I wonder . . . do Rabid Clique folks practice being
WRONG more intensely on weekdays or weekends?
INDEED.
And pretty outrageously haughty and shocking such calls have been.
I don’t recall if my former Muzzie roommate of 14 months had had a vision of Christ, or not. I think he mostly examined Scripture on a challenge and became a Christian through that route.
Certainly he had interactions with Holy Spirit in the process of reading the New Testament and eventually the Old. Holy Spirit led him into Christianity more than those of us on the sidelines.
Could you explain what you mean? I don't have any idea of what you think you're saying.
Below are the examples
of exalting other deities.
They are real.
They are serious.
They are owned,
operated in,
manifested in,
heart-felt wallowed in
by millions of Roman Catholics around the world.
Pretending otherwise does not change the facts.
White washing it with magicsterical diplospeak
doesn't change the facts.
Rationalizing it with 101 weasel words
doesn't change the facts.
.
.
.
the FACTS are easy enough to see below
for anyone with
more discernment than a gnat's.
.
.
.
Those reading this with any consciousness above comotose
no longer have any excuse.
.
.
.
Holy Spirit will be nudging, urging, forsaking of all such
--ALL HINT OF SUCH--
IGNORING HIS LEADING, NUDGING, URGING
in such matters can be spiritually deadly.
Very spiritually deadly.
.
.
.
ONCE AGAIN,
just a small part of
THE EVIDENCE: .
.
.
Here's the title:
And it carries the official sanctions of:
ni•hil ob•stat
n.
1. Roman Catholic Church An attestation by a church censor that a book contains nothing damaging to faith or morals.
2. Official approval, especially of an artistic work.
WITH RICHARD CARDINAL CUSHING’S IMPRIMATUR
Let me track down the brief portion of quotes upthread . . .
Here they are:
However, as we've seen through a variety of sources--a pile of them in Ferraro's manual about the Rosary--the Roman Catholic et al/Vatican Edifice disagrees with a lot of the claims of RC's hereon to the contrary.
p.32
.
[Quixicated emphases below]
Mary is crowned Queen of heaven and earth, dispenser of all graces . . .
p32
4 - She became Queen of Purgatory, where she exercises her power as mediatrix in behalf of these suffering souls.
5 - She became Queen of us sinners, to assist us through the dangers of this life and to help us in difficulties.
6 - She became the ruler of hell, that trembles at her slightest gaze and is defeated by her power.
"Just as a rock extracted from earth will precipitate into the abyss, so will man, left without Mary's help, quickly slide toward hell." --Richard of St Victor
p37
Sacred Heart of Jesus, Thy kingdom come; Thy kingdom come through Mary! --Partial Indulgence
p41
"Mary is the tree of life to those who grasp her, and he is happy who hold her fast." --Prov. 3:18
p43
1 - "Hail Mary, beloved daughter of the Father, Mother of the Divine Son, Spouse of the Holy Spirit, complement of the most august Trinity!"
p45
6 - To her was granted grace greater than that conferred upon all others, 'that she might vanquish sin in every respect.'
.
[Qx: I guess Christ's vanquishing sin was unnecessary--or ineffectual without Mary's assistance?]
p46
7 - "Mary is the dawn of God because, just as the dawn marks the end of darkness and the beginning of day, so Mary indicates the end of vices and the beginning of virtue."
.
[Qx: I guess Christ's conquering on The Cross and HIS conquering trip to hell were unncessary?]
9 - God loved Mary so much that He gave her the keys to His heart. 'No one can go to God without Mary drawing him.'
.
[Qx: I guess Holy Spirit has been relegated to a 'Walter Mitty' role as spouse of Mary? That's SOME POWER to cancel & take over HOLY SPIRIT'S role to draw men to God!]
p47
4 - "Mary, trusting in the word of the angel, destroyed the sin Eve committed by trusting in the serpent.'
.
[Qx: Evidently, she beat Christ to the job of vanquishing sin!]
5 - "She desired the safety of everyone, went in search of it, and obtained it; it was also through her that this salvation was wrought."
.
[QX: What an unnecessary waste of precious Blood and suffering on THE CROSS!!!/sar]
p47
10 - "As Noah's Ark saved all the animals that entered it, so Mary saves all the souls that entrust themselves to her care."
p50
8 - "If she were not so holy as she is, how could God appoint her to be the ladder of Paradise, the advocate of the world, meatrix between HIm and us?"
p50
4 - "By becoming Mother of God, Mary belongs to the order of hypostatic union; hence she participates IN the infinite sanctity of God."
I think it's a general rule that God blesses obedient children.
Sometimes . . . in this boot camp life . . . God's priorities for our ruling and reigning eternally with Christ may require some particularly severe training regimens which preclude the prosperity great spirituality would otherwise tend to foster.
And, we may have no idea what nitty gritty glitches in one’s spirit or relationship with God or what have you some fiery furnaces or long trials or even years of poverty . . . may be connected with—in a life that externally appears to be otherwise saintly.
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.