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.
What is the pope kissing there? What is that thing?
One thing’s for sure. It’s not the Holy Scriptures, the word of God, the sword of the Holy Spirit, the light of truth and the promise of salvation made known to fallen men.
Is that a book?
It almost looks like a 3-ring binder ... what is that?
****************************
Interesting observation. It does seem odd, but do you have any idea why it is so?
As is Apostolic Tradition, but how very typical of the evil to only consider a portion of the evidence when defending a flawed a priori conclusion. The truth is so often rejected by you and we know that God is truth.
Like some shyster lawyer's antics you seek to withhold evidence so that the jury will make a decision based only upon your argument. News flash for you. You can't withhold evidence from God nor alter His judgment by spreading falsehoods.
Wagglebee didn't say who she knew to be Satanic, I have no such hesitations. To the same degree your actions are Satanic so are you and your actions proclaim it loudly.
Brother in Christ? Talk about misrepresentation (to say the least)...
First of all, I did not "misquote" Scripture, I quoted the D-R and I will acknowledge that that section of the verse might cause some disagreement even with different Catholic translations.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that ALL translations speak of enmity(ies) and does not indicate that the Son and His mother will have different enmities. Because the enmity between Christ and Satan must be inpenetrable, that of His mother must be the same.
Blessed does not mean sinless .. blessed means blessed
So, Christ is merely "blessed"?
Elizabeth was welcoming her cousin, bestowing a blessing on her and the child with in her womb ...
No she was declaring an existing state, not saying "bless you."
Take a look at the Magnificat sometime. I realize that later Protestant translations have changed the word magnify, but they still refer to passage as the Magnificat. How is it that a stained soul can MAGNIFY the Lord? A stain soul will ALWAYS obscure the Lord no matter how hard we try.
Catholics don't dismiss Paul, but neither do we elevate him to a position superior to Christ. His works are only to be considered in the context of the Gospels of Christ. The Catholic position is that id only the Gospels survived they would be sufficient for Salvation, but conversely if only the letters of Paul survived they would be hollow and meaningless.
You would serve God and your fellow man well to stop spreading and repeating known untruths.
Sorry!
Anti-Marian bigotry is very recent and was never mentioned by the Reformers. But centuries of "sola scriptura" in place of the Mass lead many of these "Bible Christians" far away from the truth.
Traditional Anglicans and Lutherans don't have any problem with Marian feast days because they have always celebrated them. They don't mind the Eucharist because they celebrate it each week.
Lutherans and Anglicans know what their theological differences with Catholics are, but they don't go looking for new ones.
I can not speak for all Catholics. But for me St. Paul was given the work of an Apostle and should be respected as such. His writings are inspired and do not contradict anything said by Christ.
The working of Christ’s grace within him are evident when one considers what this man accomplished. He truly was an awesome witness to Jesus. I have the utmost regard and admiration for him and believe this era needs another Paul to rise up and preach to all nations.
Why are you replying for RnMomof7? If she has a problem, let her discuss it. I have no idea why you are bringing up some other old thread, either. What does that have to do with this?
That makes sense. Thanks.
People mistake being made righteous by GOD's favor for being sinless and they are not one and the same. Noah was found righteous. He wasn't without sin and he sure wasn't after the flood. The same with Abraham and Moses. Moses died because of his sin. Because of his sin he did not enter the promised land. Yet Moses and Abraham were GOD's chosen persons for fulfilling GOD's Divine purpose and will just as Mary was.
Only one person has walked this earth sinless before GOD. His name is Jesus Christ. He came as Lord and Savior for all including Mary and John The Baptist a man who was born filled with The Holy Spirit by Biblical accounts. Yet what did John The Baptist say of Christ? The most beloved Disciple of Christ died an earthly death. Where is Mary? She is with The Lord.
If Mary was free from all sin then this world needed not a Savior because it proved mankind could save itself from sin. But Mary is indeed now free from all sin through Christ. Christ left Mary here on earth with the Disciples. He actually left her with James who took her into his home saying "This is your mother". He said it to James not all the Disciples. I do not think Christ meant for Mary to be anyone but whom she was. Notice except for the Wedding miracle no special favor with Him or none is mentioned thereafter. Actually the opposite is shown when she and his Disciples and brothers {yes I think he had earthly half brothers from Mary and Joseph} came to see Him. Who is my mother sister and brother Christ asked? The answer was given.
I rely far more on what is written on the pages of The Holy Bible preserved by GOD HIMSELF for 3500 years than mans traditions and mans decreed church laws. Christ set us free from than bondage and some still want to re-institute it. That is the nature of man. It has been the nature of man throughout history. It was the nature of Israel when brought out of Egypt and what did it get them in return?
Christ gave us The Way, The Truth, and The Light. He made it so simple a child can grasp much of it. It doesn't take knowing years of studying and understanding Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and other ancient writings, passed down traditions of man. That system FAILED!!!
Reading the third Chapter of John and believing can bring you salvation through Jesus Christ the very instant you believe and accept it. Reading books upon books and studying years upon years of ancient tradition will bring you ancient traditions.
The miracle of salvation is GOD through the Holy Spirits Gives You Your Daily Bread just a GOD gave Israel Manna Whom did the Manna come from GOD or Moses? We need to be dependent on that and not relying on mans traditions. Come to Him as a child not a scholar and theologists. A child need not fully understand to believe a child believes by faith and trust. A child is taught by The Father. {and earthly mother}.
So your interpretation of "a clear reading" permits you to inject your own biases into the Word. That explains how you got to the spiritual dead end you appear to have reached.
1,113 posted on December 7, 2010 1:34:07 PM MST by Natural Law
You seem unfamiliar with the use of a parenthetical remark
Rule 1. Use parentheses to enclose words or figures that clarify or are used as an aside. Examples: I expect five hundred dollars ($500). Yah'shua rebuked all of their Traditions of man. Your pope is analogous to the high priest in the temple, as explained in the parenthetical remark. He will one day be rebuked by Yah'shua for impugning, condemning or modifying the Holy Word of G-d. I hope that I have explained this to your level of comprehension.I'm so very sorry, I must have you confused with someone
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
with a college education and perhaps advanced degrees in theology.
provided for clarification in the English language. Parentheses
The High Priest in Jerusalem sent a delegation to quiz Yah'shua on their traditions
which impugn, condemn or further modify the Holy Word of G-d.
He always responded by saying "It is Written" as He is the Holy Word of G-d.
It is the Koran. And I think the Pope was wrong to kiss it. He could have been a respectful guest without doing so. Not beheading the other attendents for instance. Quite frankly it caused scandal for the Church. I loved John Paul II but he was not perfect. This was not an ex cathedera act and says nothing about what Catholics are supposed to believe. It did and does give a bad impression and is an easy target for our enemies. It was the wrong thing to do.
Nice post!
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.