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.
Can not an ordinary Jewish girl be a special woman ?
Isaiah 29 “The Lord says: “These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men”.
. Ecclesiastes 9:5 & Psalm 146:4
Sorry for the redundancy in the above; something got messed up in the coding and i did not see it in my haste.
Ah ... Catholic inflexibility when it is needed ... since Paul only said "all" and not "all except Christ" that opens up the door to nullify the Word of God with your tradition by claiming Mary is also an exception to "all." Got it ...
I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. (Genesis 3:15)
What is that? The New Catholic Translation? Quite a departure from NASB. I couldnt find any translation on biblegateway that supports your translation. Thats beside the point though ... What is your evidence that "she" is Mary ... at this point in history ... the only "she" was Eve.
You’re just hysterical to think you are former Catholics, married to one or an ex-one, and that you have Catholic family. Nor are any of you married to any, you are delusional. And the 89 year old Catholic MIL I built a house for on my property and we are the sole caretakers of? An illusion, we are as cuckoo as two cocoa puffs
now you are winding me up
Where did Christ or the apostles ever teach that the dead, even if in heaven , can interceded for us?
Where do the scriptures tell you to direct your prayers? (1Ti 2:5)
Scripture tells us that when Christ died, the veil of the temple..the veil that separated men from God, from the Holy of Holies in the Temple ..the curtain that only the High priest could go behind one time a year to mediate for the sins of Israel ...that curtain was ripped in 2, allowing men to have full access to God without a priest. Now we can enter into the throne room of God through Christ..not His mother, not our deceased family members, not the deceased saints.. but through Christ and Christ alone
Hbr 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
wagglebee: Actually, God didn't say that, Saint Paul wrote it.
Wow. So Rome has now stayed so far from orthodox Christianity as to deny the inspired Scriptures are God-breathed. Your own catechism refutes your error...
107 - The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."106 - God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."
Now, as is the way of Rome, the RCC catechism goes on to hedge and dodge and double-speak the truth it just recorded in 106 and 107. But the fact remains, Rome considers the "all" the Scriptures to be "affirmed by the Holy Spirit" and that the authors wrote "whatever (God) wanted written, and no more."
Apparently you are at odds with your own catechism in your denial that God through Paul authored the Scriptures.
However, I can see where this confusing for anti-Catholics, they nominally worship Paul as their god (though they are actually serving Satan).
Pathetic. We speak of errant practices and beliefs within the RCC and you denounce Christians as servants of Satan.
"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." -- 2 Peter 2:1
"...even dying the Lord that bought them."
RC apologists had better hope that "denial" does not include denying God's inspired word and denying the fact that it was God who wrote the Scriptures in order to tell them the Good News of Jesus Christ. Sadly, some RCs would have the world believe "God didn't say that, Saint Paul wrote it."
And it was right on! Not much hope they will see it though.
It’s much worse to say that Christians, (and yes he did concede that he considered “a handful” of what he considers “antiCatholics” to be Christians, who then are indwelt by the HS,) serve Satan
That doesn't explain Mark 7 and your out of context citation. No single Scriptural principle can be adequately conveyed with a single verse.
The Word of God is a tapestry of interdependent and interrelated thoughts. No single thread or source of light does it justice. The catholic Mass recognizes this and provides an Old Testament verse, a New Testament verse and a quotation from Christ Himself and follows it up with a homily tying them together and elaborating on the concept. The Protestant practice of using single out of context versus as factoids and sound bites to support their Scriptural assertions is about as disingenuous as an Obama campaign commercial.
Well at least my friend didn’t say Paul was nuts
You know very well that Catholics believe Scripture is inspired. What we do not believe is that God dictated the words and the writers acted only as passive receivers of those words.
“Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.(1) In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4)”
Let us see you retract the erroneous statement you made. Crickets.
Tell us oh mighty one - which tradition was He not addressing.
Apparently you are at odds with your own catechism in your denial that God through Paul authored the Scriptures.
No, I'm at odds with YOUR INTERPRETATION of the Catechism.
We speak of errant practices and beliefs within the RCC and you denounce Christians as servants of Satan.
For the last time, I have NEVER denounced a single Christian as a servant of Satan.
Just curious, are you ever going to join a religion that believes in actually reading the Gospels and doesn't really strictly on the epistles of Saint Paul? The OPC routinely goes months without hearing a single verse of the Gospels read in their Sunday morning services.
This may be of interest: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/The_Lord%27s_Supper.htm
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.