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.
I also spend each Shabbat in prayer and scripture. I do 8 - 10 hours of scriptural exegesis
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
with a noted bible teacher each week.
Actually, God didn't say that, Saint Paul wrote it.
However, I can see where this confusing for anti-Catholics, they nominally worship Paul as their god (though they are actually serving Satan).
Thanks for acknowledging what you believe.
Truth be told, NO real Christian would want any part of the anti-Catholic version of Heaven. Anti-Catholicism is really nothing more than an offshoot of Islam and that is probably where anti-Catholics will spend eternity.
BEAUTIFUL.
MUCH APPRECIATED.
Mary was his respected loved mother. She is NOT God and we can at most ask her to pray for us like you might our own relatives who passed on.
IMO she is a great advocate to pray for you.
I don’t care about the sin question because in any case Christ has forgiven any sins IMO that would have been that.
Isaiah 53
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
The counterfeit church took Mary, a servant of the Lord, and dressed her up with titles, accolades to make her their goddess.
It’s not Mary of the Bible but satan disguised as an angel of light.
And satan has fulfilled his mission through the RCC....I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.” Isa 14:12-14
According to his definition of prayer ... Jesus prayed TO Lazarus.
What is the issue? If you support his definition of prayer then you should have no problem admitting this. But what I think is happening is that you are seeing where this belief is going to lead.
Let me go further on his point ...
Since Jesus prayed to Lazarus ... why don't Catholics in general pray to Lazarus. Shouldnt you follow the example Christ gave and mix in a "Dear Lazarus" in between a Hail Mary and an Our Father?
Now let me say ... I am certainly applying the Limbaugh method of using absurdity to demonstrate absurdity. But this is the place you are forced to go when you impose arbitrary definitions upon the text to support a priori theological musings ... rather that exegete the Biblical passage and let it speak for itself. There is nothing in the text to impose the belief that "Jesus didn't command Lazarus" or "Jesus prayed to Lazarus."
even though so many of us admitted Catholics tell you we don’t partake in such a practice.
Which is it? Do you or do you not 'communicate' with dead saints?
Thanks for acknowledging what you believe.
Wagglebee, you did something very similar to Gamecock. Which of the "antiCatholics" are going to hell? Which are Heaven bound?
Can an "antiCatholic" go to Heaven?
Do you decide who may go, or are you simply an adviser?
Ah ... so now scripture is not inspired.
Maybe you should rephrase ...
When you pray to Lazarus, you're not supposed to pray with words. You're supposed to pray through interpretive dance. It's not in any scripture, but it's a tradition.
Looking for cover is thin skinned.
No, the Bible does not say they will die. You could be right, they may be the two witnesses in Revelation, but again, that is your interpretation of Scripture. It could also be someone not yet born, or someone we don’t know about.
The Catholic Church included the Book of Revelation in it’s canon, which it has defended over the years; if I remember correctly, Martin Luther wanted to toss it, along with the Epistle of James and the Letter to the Hebrews. The Church does teach that it is not an easy book, and there is a great deal of confusion about it; again it’s a matter of interpretation, but that is another discussion!
Does it say anywhere in the Bible that children should not be baptized? Where does it say that it is a conscious act? Does not Paul mention “whole households” being baptized? Would that not include children? Did not the early church baptize infants?
Sorry; I have to follow Jesus on this one; “let the children come to me”, and “no one can enter the kingdom of God without first being born of water and Spirit” as a couple of examples.
I never said any such thing. Inspired and inerrant DO NOT mean that it was dictation.
Maybe you should rephrase ...
I'm not going to rephrase anything to accommodate anti-Catholic heretical beliefs and reading comprehension problems.
and perhaps this is what the Catholics are getting at, and really believe, that Jesus was no Savior and why they must needs worship a pure goddess, a figment of their own imaginations, a vanity
More Holy Spirit bashing I see.
why next they'll be joining in prayers to the UN's moon goddess
There does not seem to be a need. Her only requirement was her bloodline.
Miriam's role was not her characteristics or value, 1. Miriam is a daughter who has no brothers 2. Joseph is descended from King David. 3. The inheritance exception granted for the daughters of Zelophehad 4. If a woman who has no brothers marries a man of the same tribe 5. Joseph and Miriam are married (each descended from King David)
The first question to be asked is why does she need to be held to be sinless,
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
but her bloodlines to King David,
having no brothers and
the exception started by
the daughters of Zelophehad.
There are five things that are important here:
and is descended from King David.
But he is from a line prohibited to inherit.
(These were daughters who had no brothers)
is in effect (Numbers 26, 27, 36; Joshua 17; 1 Chronicles 7).
She can inherit forever.
thus providing Miriam with permanent inheritance
of the Kingship of David for her to pass on to her son Yah'shua (Messiahship).
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.