Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: BenKenobi
No Biblical proof ey? Making it up as you go? You folks aren’t a whole lot different then the Mormons.

The early Church did not teach what the Church teaches today concerning Mary. In fact they denounced it as heretical.

It originated in the fifth century with the heretics Pelagius and Celestius and was universally rejected by both Fathers and popes of the early church, as evidenced by its rejection by Augustine and Gregory the Great, and in later centuries by Anselm, Bernard of Clairveaux, and Thomas Aquinas. The Roman Catholic patristic scholar, Walter Burghardt, confirms the patristic and papal rejection of this doctrine historically:

Post-Augustinian patristic thought on the perfection of Mary reveals two conflicting currents. There is a negative, unfavorable trend rooted in Augustine's anti-Pelagianism; it accentuates the universality of original sin and articulates the connection between inherited sin and any conception consequent upon sinful concupiscence. The root idea is summed up by Leo the Great: 'Alone therefore among the sons of men the Lord Jesus was born innocent, because alone conceived without pollution of carnal concupiscence.' The same concept is discoverable in St. Fulgentius, Bishop of Ruspe in Africa (d. 533), the most significant theologian of his time; in Pope Gregory the Great (d. 604) at the end of the sixth century; and a century later in Venerable Bede, a scholar renowned throughout England.

In later centuries the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was a matter of violent dispute within the church between Franciscans and Dominicans for centuries. It also contradicts the scriptural teaching of the universality of original, as well as actual, sin.

Roman Catholicism teaches the faithful that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven. It states that this too is a dogma of the faith, a truth divinely revealed by God and necessary to be believed for salvation. It goes so far as to assert that any who would dispute this doctrine have completely fallen from the faith and are condemned. For the first six centuries nothing is said on this matter.

The first Father to promote the teaching of her assumption was Gregory of Tours in A.D. 590, and he based his teaching on an apocryphal gospel found in the Transitus literature. The assumption doctrine actually originated with this literature sometime in the fourth or fifth centuries and this specific teaching — the Transitus assumption of Mary was officially rejected as heretical. It was placed in the same category with such heretics as Arius, Pelagius, and Marcion and was condemned by two popes in the late fifth and early sixth centuries — Gelasius and Hormisdas. These popes place this doctrine, its authors and the contents of their writings, as well as all who follow their teachings, under an eternal anathema. Thus, the early church viewed this doctrine not as the pious expression of the faith of the faithful but as a heretical doctrine that probably originated from gnostic sources. Discoveries such as these only underlined my growing awareness that Rome did not accurately represent the historic doctrine of the early church, much less what I saw in the New Testament.

Rome teaches that Mary is a mediatrix and even a co-redemptrix with Christ and that grace cannot be applied to man except through her. This teaching is also false. It not only contradicts the scriptural teaching of the unique and exclusive mediatorial role of Christ but there is not one word found in Scripture of Mary functioning in the role of mediatrix or co-redemptrix. Nor is there one word of this kind of teaching in the writings of the Fathers.

The early Church would have condemned todays Church as heretics.

187 posted on 12/30/2010 8:12:05 PM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies ]


To: CynicalBear

“No Biblical proof ey?”

Regarding her perpetual virginity? It’s not explicitly stated in the bible.

“Making it up as you go? The early Church did not teach what the Church teaches today concerning Mary. In fact they denounced it as heretical.”

According to the Protoevangelium of James (written around A.D. 120), Mary was a consecrated virgin. The Church has pretty much always taught that she was a perpetual Virgin, and the belief is well attested by the early Church Fathers.

“It originated in the fifth century with the heretics Pelagius and Celestius and was universally rejected by both Fathers and popes of the early church”

Quite false.

“Thomas Aquinas”.

Complete and utter rubbish.

“In his monumental Summa Theologiae St. Thomas Aquinas gives three reasons for Mary’s perpetual virginity: First, Jesus is the Only-Begotten of the Father, so it was becoming that he should be the only-begotten of his Mother. Second, Mary’s virginal womb is the shrine of the Holy Spirit, wherein he had formed the flesh of Christ; wherefore it was unbecoming that intercourse with man should desecrate it. Third, this is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of God’s Mother: For she would seem to be most ungrateful, were she not content with such a Son.”

You don’t have a clue what you are talking about.


193 posted on 12/30/2010 9:13:51 PM PST by BenKenobi (Rush speaks! I hear, I obey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies ]

To: CynicalBear; BenKenobi
Proof for your statements, please? You do realise that we reject Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, right?

you do know that Pelagianism means "mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid. " while Semipelagian thought teaches that the latter half - growing in faith - is the work of God, while the beginning of faith is an act of free will, with grace supervening only later

It too was labeled heresy by the Western Church in the Second Council of Orange in 529. The Church teaches taht the initiative comes from God.

Mary did not save herself in any way -- we believe that all of what she did or was was due to God's grace. All Mary did was say 'yes'. The grace was freely given by God, the protectino by God, everything by God, Her Son and Savior.
249 posted on 12/31/2010 3:13:11 AM PST by Cronos (Kto jestem? Nie wiem! Ale moj Bog wie!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies ]

To: CynicalBear; BenKenobi
The salvation of humanity was accomplished by God’s only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. The Passion and Death of Christ, our sole Redeemer, was not only sufficient but ‘superabundant’ satisfaction for human guilt and the consequent debt of punishment

God willed that this work of salvation be accomplished through the collaboration of a woman, while respecting her free will (Gal. 4:4).

Mary’s cooperation with God is in NO WAY EQUAL to Christ’s work. It was of a completely different, lower level, but necessary nonetheless
251 posted on 12/31/2010 3:19:53 AM PST by Cronos (Kto jestem? Nie wiem! Ale moj Bog wie!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson