YET MORE!
BRAZENLY FALSE
ABSURDITIES
from the
Vatican Alice In Wonderland School of Theology and Reality Mangling
!!!!CONTROL!!!!
Phreaque clique
Departmentt.
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.
It does boggle the mind.
I know God said he was dead and He buried him although we know he was in perfect health. But someone mentioned Moses along with Elijah awhile back and I forgot what the guy said about Moses! He gave some interesting thoughts about it. Just thought you may have heard anything.
And here is paragraph 67...
"67. In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth. One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect[146] and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity. To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago. Such 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[147], and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth. Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights[148]. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums. Without this, despite the great progress accomplished in various sectors, international law would risk being conditioned by the balance of power among the strongest nations. The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment of a greater degree of international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization[149]. They also require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order, to the interconnection between moral and social spheres, and to the link between politics and the economic and civil spheres, as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations."
If this weren't written by a Roman Catholic priest, I doubt you would have even one Roman Catholic "conservative" agreeing with it. It is pure communistic, anti-free market, anti-capitalism.
Ratzinger wants this "global authority" to control the United States' policies on polities, immigration, food distribution, finance, health, taxation, property rights and justice systems. "Conservatives" should be outraged at this blatant power grab.
Wow. Do you even know the rules for this forum? You appear to be breaking them left and right (mostly left.).
Given that
you seem to have great difficulty in reading the simple assertions I’ve already posted on that matter
e.g.
stating that I’m a
TRINITARIAN PENTECOSTAL DISPY
I see no rational reason for responding further to your cheekiness.
INDEED.
Thx.
Irenaeus did not believe in the Perpetual virginity of Mary, as demonstrated in Against Heresies, 3:21:10 and 3:22:4.Tertullian, died around 220 AD – Carthage, North Africa, wrote five books against Marcion and other works against Gnostics and other heresies.
Tertullian understood that Mary and Joseph had a normal sexual relationship within marriage after Jesus was born and so the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is biblical and historical, but the “brothers and sisters of the Lord” are truly the children of Mary of Joseph. (see “On the Flesh of Christ”, chapter 23; On Monogamy, 8; and Against Marcion, 4:19)...
Origen (254 AD), Basil (379 AD), and Chrysostom (407 AD) all denied that Mary was sinless.
Rome just makes things up.
.
Not only does the Vatican in Rome just make things up, the Vatican Alice in Wonderland School of Theology and Reality Mangling
MAKES THINGS UP
BADLY,
IRRATIONALLY,
UNHISTORICALLY,
UNBIBLICALLY,
OUTRAGEOUSLY!
And then the !!!!CONTROL!!!! phreaque RC's hereon get all huffy that we aren't stupid enough to respect their dogma, rituals, idolatries, blasphemies, heresies from hell!
Sheesh.
This is why non Catholics find Catholic beliefs so disturbing. Scripture is twisted and mangled and the result is to take away His glory from God, and give it to another.
ABSOLUTELY INDEED! THX.
The Transfiguration where Moses and Elijah appeared to Jesus Christ is why the question of Moses comes up. It’s very interesting and I would love to hear a conversation about this. I don’t know, the Bible clearly says he died. And that Enoch and Elijah have not. I wonder about the 2 witnesses in Revelation. It would just seem that Moses would be one of them. It’s a great topic of information to me, too. Perhaps someone who is a more knowledgeable than me can give us some info on it!
The man was very educated in Jewish roots and Christianity. It was his thoughts - and all I remember are his last words....’something to think about’ LOL!
. . . not necessarily the truth
And that came from Post #666! LOL!!
You've just proven Col._Flagg's point. Adam and Eve DID sin, therefore they were not born without a sin nature. And they eventually acted according to that nature.
Just like Mary and the rest of humanity are born with a sin nature and succumb to that nature by sinning.
Further, it is basic Christianity 101 that there has only been one person born without a sin nature and who committed no sins -- Jesus Christ.
" For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." -- 2 Corinthians 5:21
Where does the word of God say that about Mary? Rome turns a simple Jewish girl who was blessed by God to carry the Christ child to term into a brazen, superstitious, anti-Scriptural, truth-denying blasphemy.
Repent of it.
EXCELLENT POST.
Of course, the rabid supporters of dogma from hell will trot out their rationalizations soon enough. LOL.
Sigh.
Sounds like
Basil of Caesarea
had had his fill of White Hanky’d theology even prior to the forming of the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church.
EXCELLENT POINTS well made.
Thx.
Reminds me of
ETERNITY IN THEIR HEARTS.
Have you read it?
“twisted”
is toooooooooooo charitable.
There it is! Thanks for pointing it out, Quix
DrE - I was looking for it. I started reading it earlier but didn’t complete it. EXCELLENT!! Thank you!
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.