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.

Lazarus is not analogous to PTDS (prayer to departed saints), as the case with the latter is that they are in heaven and able to hear and respond to potentially billions of prayers simultaneously, an attribute of Deity never shown to have been given to man, and are purportedly making intercession to God. The issue is no >You don’t know what a prayer is and you also don’t know your Bible. The word “pray” comes from the Latin word precari, which simply means to entreat or ask. A prayer is a form of communicating a request,, typically of a spiritual nature. Also, Jesus would never have commanded Lazurus, given their relationship. That would have been highly disrespectful.”< >>The word for how Jesus spoke to Lazarus is not “precari” - “pray”, it’s “eipon” - “having said” ...The word in the Greek is to command.<<
The issue is not simply what the word prayer means, but its object, and the spiritual relation that exists between God and man in the spiritual realm, and the separation of realms which God manifests, and thus communication between created heavenly beings and earthlings always were personal encounters, while relations between people on earth is not to be by telepathy. Lazarus is not analogous to PTDS (prayer to departed saints), as the case with the latter is that they are in heaven and able to hear and respond to potentially billions of prayers simultaneously, an attribute of Deity never shown to have been given to man, and are purportedly making intercession to God. Lazarus likely had not yet ascended (that's another study) and was being address by the Lord, not for help but to obey, and if another addressed Lazarus he would be talking to the wall. The foundational issue is that of Scriptural warrant and conflation. The Bible teaches abundantly on prayer, and in order to warrant PTDS (praying to departed saints in heaven) one must find an approved example or teaching of it, and some insufficiency in Christ as regards immediate access or ability or compassion, etc. Yet the Bible provides just the opposite and clearly so. The advocate of PTDS is thus left seeking to extrapolate this out of analogy between earthly communications, supposing a complete correspondence to that between earth and heaven, and or a "God can do anything" hermeneutic, but which is a strained and problematic exegesis which cannot overcome the weight of evidence against it, and such attempts are typical of cults when faced with the same. To substantiate that PTDS is Scriptural, one needs to, from the Bible (and in order of importance),
1	provide just one example, among the multitude of prayers in the Bible, where anyone besides heathen prayed to, addressed, anyone else in heaven but the Lord.	Example, descriptions, instructions. See Bible prayers here Gen. 15:2; 17:18; 18:23; 18:23-32; 24:12-14; 32:9-12; Ex. 25:22; 32:11-13; 33:12-19; Num. 6:23-26; 10:35-36; 11:11-16; 12:13-14; 14:13-19; 27:15-18; Dt. 3:23-25; 9:25; 9:26-29; 21:7-9; 26:5-10; Josh. 7:7-9; Jdg 6:13; 6:15; 6:15-17; 6:36-37; 6:39; 13:8; 16:8; 1Sam.1:10-11; 2:1-10; 2Sam. 7:18-29; 24:17; 1Ki. 3:5-61; 17:20-21; 18:25-26; 18:27-37; 19:4; 2 Ki. 6:17-18; 19:15-19; 1Chr.4:10; 29:9-19; 14:11; 2Chr. 6:40; 14:11; 20:6-12; 30:18-19; Ezra 8:3; 9:5-15; Neh. 1:4,5; 1:4-11; 4:4-5; 9:5-38; Job 22:27; Ps. 4:1; 5:3; 6:9; 17:1; 35:13; 39:12; 42:8; 54:2; 55:1; 61:1; 64:1; 65:2; 66:19,20:69:13; 72:15; 80:4; 84:8; 86:1,6; 86:6; 88:2,13; 90:1; 102:1,17; 109:4,7; 141:2,5; 142:1; 143:1; Prov. 15:8,29; 28:8; Is. 37:4; 38:2,3,5; 56:7; Jer. 7:16; 11:14; 26:19; Lam. 3:8,44; Ezek. 9:8; Dan. 9:3-19; Jonah 2:1-9; Hab. 1:12-17; 3:2-18; Mat. 6:9-13; 11:25-27; 17:21; 21:22; 26:39; Lk. 1:9,13; 6:12; 18:10-13; 19:46; 23:30; 23:34; 23:46; Jn.11:41-42; 17:1-22; 17:1-26; Acts 1:14,24-25; 3:1; 6:4; 9:6; 10:2,31; 12:5; 16:13,16; Rm. 10:1; 12:12; 1Cor. 1:2; 7:5; 2Cor. 1:1; 9:14; 12:8; Eph. 1:16-22; 3:13-21; 6:18; Phil. 1:4,9-11,19; 4:6; Col 1:9-13ff; 4:2; 1Thes. 3:10-13; 5:23,24; 2Thes. 1:10-12; 2:16-17; 1Tim. 4:2; 2Tim. 4:16; Heb. 2:18; 4:15,16; 7:25; 10:19-22; 13:20-21; James 5:16,17; 1Pt. 4:7; Rev. 6:16-16; 22:2022:20
2	provide one place where exhortations, commands or instruction or descriptions on prayer directed believers to pray to departed saints or angels. ("i.e. "After this manner pray, Our mother, who art in heaven...")..
3	show where believers in Christ cannot have direct access to God in heaven, or where any insufficiency exists in Christ regarding immediacy, ability, or compassion that would require or advantage another intercessor in heaven between Christ and man, besides the Holy Spirit. (Ex. 25:22; Eph. 2:18; Heb. 2:18; 4:15,16; 7:25; 10:19-22; etc.)
4	If believers can pray to the departed saints for help in their Christian life, then show why they cannot call upon saints for salvation, and where the Bible supports that.
5	show where departed souls in heaven are taking prayer requests addressed to them.
6	show where the departed are given the Divine attribute of omniscience, so they can hear and process an infinite amount of prayer. (Ps. 65:2; 139:4; Prov. 15:3)
7	provide where any communication between believers on earth and heavenly beings besides God took place apart from a personal visitation, either by men being caught up to heaven or by angels coming to earth. (Jdg. 13; Mk. 9:2-9; Rev. 4:1ff;)
8	show where anyone else is called "Queen of heaven" other than Jer 44:17 (“But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven,” who was a heavenly object of devotion and prayer.
9	If believers can pray to the departed saints for help in their Christian life, then show why they cannot call upon saints for salvation, and where the Bible supports that.
10	Show where another basic necessary practice has zero positive examples and is contrary to whatever is stated on the issue.
	*There is no express command against consensual cannibalism (whoever dies first we will have for dinner) either, among other things. And while its basic prohibition is justly derived from Gn. 9:3,5,6 which establishes the source of man's food, yet in keeping with the foundational law of love, in dire circumstance of necessity it might be allowed (and with the Andes survivors).t simply praying to the deceased, but of the separation of realms which God manifests, and thus communication between created heavenly beings and earthlings always were personal encounters, while relations between ppl on earth is not to be by telepathy. The Bible teaches abundantly on prayer, and in order to warrant PTDS, one must find an approved example or teaching of it, and some insufficiency in Christ as regards immediate access or ability or compassion, etc. Yet the Bible provides just the opposite and clearly so. The advocate of PTDS is thus left seeking to extrapolate this out of analogy between earthly communications, supposing a complete correspondence to that between earth and heaven, and "God can do anything" hermeneutic, but which is a strained and problematic exegesis which cannot overcome the weight of evidence against it, and typical of cults when faced with the same.

The Last Supper was actually the Last “passover “ and the 1st Lords Supper.

Gods intervention to end the slavery of His people by the Egyptians held many types that pointed to Christ’s death .

We see as a prime example the final plague God brought on the Egyptians.
Every 1st born was to die at the hand of Gods avenging angel.

God gave specific orders on how the jews were to be protected from that sword of death.

They were to have a perfect Lamb and to slaughter him. They were to spread the blood of that lamb over the drop posts ( in a shape similar to a cross) When the angel saw that blood he would pass over that home and the people inside were preserved from the plague.

God gave specific instructions on how to eat that Lamb, that passover meal was to be a ritual that would be celebrated in remembrance of the grace and salvation of God for His people.

That meal prefigured Christ, on the night Jesus was betrayed they celebrated the meal that prefigured His coming .

Christ OUR PASSOVER LAMB would be slain, and many would be saved that were under His blood.

There was a piece of matzo broken into 3 parts.

One pieces was broken and the hidden piece it was wrapped in white linen ( as Christ dead body was in the tomb ) it is called the aphikomen

When the meal is finished the host breaks off olive-size pieces of matzoh from the aphikomen and distributes them to all. They each eat it, in a reverent manner. Sometimes there is a blessing, “In memory of the Passover sacrifice, eaten after one is sated.”

It was at THIS point during the Last Supper Jesus broke the bread and passed bits to His disciples; however, Jesus added the significant words given in Luke 22:19),

Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake [it], and gave unto them, saying,[b] This is my body which is given for you:[/b] this do in remembrance of me.

The symbolic broken matzo wrapped in white linen was the symbolic body of Christ revealed in the passover meal. Jesus was revealing the prophetic nature of the passover and the passover meal.

Consider that Jews had a probation against the eating of blood, yet not one disciple asked Jesus what He meant. That is because they understood when he took the APHIKOMEN into his hands, this broken Matzo that had been hidden in a linen wrap was symbolic of HIM.

Matzo has no leaven, leaven is a sign of sin. Jesus was sinless.
The Matzo had been broken as His body would be broken .

It was wrapped in linen as He would be and be hidden for a time.

This is the exact spot where Jesus proclaimed “This is my body which is given for you.” as he held that broken Matzo

The next step of the ritual meal is drinking from the wine-goblet called the “Cup of Redemption.” That’s when Jesus said,

“This cup is the New Testament (Covenant ) in my blood, which is shed for you.”

The Passover meal was a REMEMBRANCE of the deliverance of the Jews. Just as the passover was a type of Christ so is the Passover meal.

Jesus was telling them this, and He was telling them NOW instead of the remembrance of the passover, their eyes were opened and the meaning revealed NOW they were to do the mean in remembrance of HIM, of His blood, the blood of the Lamb of God.

As He held that bread He was revealing the mystery that the symbolism held.

Think of the words the apostles used

1Cr 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

The broken matzo was a type of Christ, who’s body would be broken for them.

Then in the passover tradition

The host now takes the third cup of wine, “the cup of redemption,” or “the cup of blessing,” and offers the main table grace blessing. (In Jewish tradition, the main blessing comes after the meal.) Then they all drink from the third cup.

Luke 22:20,

“Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you’.”

Here is what the apostles and disciples said at the Lords table

1Cr 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

The were recalling “remembering” the PASSOVER ritual. THEY understood that Jesus was revealing a spiritual truth about the passover being a prophetic meal that prefigured HIM.

The Passover was fulfilled on the day that Christ died, and so from that day forward that meal not longer held a prophetic promise of a future savior, but it was now a remembrance of the completed work of salvation at the cross.

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.