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.
However, radical Calvinism has a chip on its shoulder. That is because Calvin and his followers have completely dismissed the concept of beatitude and the necessity of good works for salvation. Absent those constraints it is no wonder that Calvinism is always on the wrong side of history. A simple stroll through the last 200 years shows that calvinism was always closely associated with the practitioners of slavery, the Irish genocide, the KKK, the Nazis and their false German Christian Church, and South African Apartheid. I have no doubt that absent the constraints of the constitution the more militant Calvinists here on FR would have no compunction toward the arrest, imprisonment and even execution of Catholics so long as it was in the name of a Calvinist god.
Hey there you go again spoiling somebody’s fun.
How did you wind up on this thread?
Did you come here because you saw that someone was attacking me personally and that always excites you? You may not know it but that's kind of frowned upon in the Religion Forum.
Or was it that you saw a thread bashing the Catholic Church and you don't like the Church because of their opposition to abortion? Don't worry, there are anti-Catholics who will happily embrace someone who is pro-abortion as long as they hate Catholics.
So because she magnified the Lord that implies she was sinless?
Your argument makes no sense. David was a man after Gods own heart, which God Himself said (i.e., more direct evidence of Davids godliness than mere inference from Lukes passage concerning Mary) ... and yet David committed adultery and murder.
The point is that
Man after My own heart > Magnify ... but you are saying ...
Magnify = sinless ...
makes no sense.
That is a pretty HUGE mistranslation.. no other translation gives mary the glory like that ....
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.
Satan is the enemy of all our souls ...He is the enemy of the Church of God in all time
As Wesley put it
." A perpetual quarrel is here commenced between the kingdom of God, and the kingdom of the devil among men; war proclaimed between the seed of the woman, and the seed of the serpent, Rev 12:7. It is the fruit of this enmity, That there is a continual conflict between God's people and him. Heaven and hell can never be reconciled, no more can Satan and a sanctified soul. "
Because the enmity between Christ and Satan must be inpenetrable, that of His mother must be the same.
I thought Jesus defeated Satan and death on the cross.. so how is that "inpenetrable"???
This protoevangelist verse is the first promise of a Savior, that would crush the head of Satan . This verse is not about MARY it is about Christ..
It promises the seed of Eve would produce Christ ...
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.
Ask david, a man after Gods own heart.
Psa 69:30 I will praise the name of God with a song, and will magnify him with thanksgiving.
The soul in greek is the breath of life.. Mary was praising God ..not declaring her sinlessness
Magnify1) to make great, magnify
a) metaph. to make conspicuous
2) to deem or declare great
a) to esteem highly, to extol, laud, celebrate
3) to get glory and praise
You may not like the analogy, the fact is that it is one that has been put forward since the 18th Century to discredit the Virgin Birth. Does it make sense to treat the “Mother of my Lord” as if she were on the same footing as the mothers of Issac, of Samuel and of Elizabeth? Yes, if Jesus is no more than the greatest of the Prophets, but the Virgin Birth is not ‘merely” a miracle but an action on the same scale as the Creation itself. It means that Jesus is not “just” divine, but THE GOD” — the Creator. I think you are simply glossing over the significance of the Virgin Birth and by diminishing the role of Mary you diminish Our Lord, or advertise your belief in a minimal christology.
lol ... what about the Old Testament ... are you ok with that?
You say that God NEEDED to die in our place? He could have saved us by a word. He CHOSE to die in our place, to open a door we could not open.
Moreover, a desire to do something is different from a state of being.
Don't patronize me with your condescending drivel. Don't pee on my foot and try to tell me its raining either. Your parenthetical remark was your tool to inject your baseless opinion. The pope is not analogous to the high priests except to the degree you need him to be to make your flawed point. He is but the Bishop of Rome, and first among equals.
If you had such a love for the English language one would expect you consistently use it in your postings and to be equally observant of its spelling conventions.
I think it reasonable to assume that the Apostles wrote many letters that have not survived. We revere what has survived.
The Old Testament was satisfied by the Birth, Life, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus.
I guess my problem is claiming that the epistles somehow do not contain the gospel of salvation. I don’t know how you can read any of them and come away with that opinion.
I’m assuming the poster just had a momentary lapse and didn’t really mean what he said.
Jesus was sinless because Jesus was God and the new Adam. Mary was sinless is the same way that Adam and Eve were sinless. Indeed, one of the titles of Mary is “the New Eve.”
I assume you mean the Mosaic Law was satisfied ...
Indeed. Many modern unbelievers in fact claim that Paul invented the Gospel.
So by continuing your logic ... since Adam and Eve eventually sinned ... and Mary was like them ...
stop digging ...
Amen.
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.
Amen.
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 "another Paul" when we have Paul and his teaching? I would agree we need men to preach the Gospel as Paul preached it. Mercifully, we have such men among the congregations, here on Free Republic and throughout the world-wide internet who preach the Good News of Christ risen in truth and love.
Who does sit at the left Hand of God? Some sources claim it is the angel Gabriel.
Follow the conversation. We have RCs on this thread calling Christians “Satanic” while one of their false bishops of Rome kisses the Koran, a book that calls for the death of Christians and Jews.
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.