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.
That's understandable since boring people are usually bored.
I'll trust you to keep your race card ready for when we meet again. Meanwhile, please try to practice a bit of your precious tolerence for those of us who don't measure up to your progressive standards.
You might find we agree more than we disagree.
Sorry. It works in Firefox for me, but i should not have used an apostrophe in the title: Try http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/The_Lord’s_Supper.html
>>Meanwhile, please try to practice a bit of your precious tolerence for those of us who don’t measure up to your progressive standards.<<
You mean high standards — but I can understand your believing people smarter than you are “progressive.” People like you put them on a pedestal since you can’t really keep up. But here is the big secret: we Conservatives are smarter than you too.
But, given your penchant for quote-mining and other lowbrow tricks, I have to ask: what is your DU Name?
This assumes the Old Sin Nature is derived in part from the female chromosomes, whereas many in the last 50 years have held a different view, that the Scriptural record indicates sin is passed from the male chromosomes.
This is consistent with the Scriptural position that the first sin charged to the human race for our death is attributed to Adam, rather than Eve, and also is consistent with our Savior as the Second Adam, through whom we all might have salvation.
That makes sense ... Ive never heard of the D-R translation. But even if it is translated “she” the nearest antecedent is Eve ... Mary is nowhere even imagined in the context.
That was my beef.
Because they are closer to the understanding of God than any of the other children of the Reformation - or else disintegrating into the dust (two different factions, which is why they are splitting like they are).
Is it driving you crazy that I'm not saying which non-Catholics on this thread I consider Christians and which I consider Satanic anti-Catholics?
Yup. If you describe a Catholic as satanic, you annoy us, because we know it is untrue and we get annoyed with the repetition of the false. If you describe a satanic anti Catholic as satanic, you enrage them, lest others find out the truth and believe that they are.
"Thou shalt not bear false witness"
Language matters, so one doesn't fall into heresy. It's pretty clear from Scripture that Our Lord Jesus Christ was one Person with two natures, human and divine. You are correct that He had a body that was subject to death during His earthly life, but His resurrected body is a glorified body.
You mean high standards — but I can understand your believing people smarter than you are “progressive.” People like you put them on a pedestal since you can’t really keep up.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I've just found Al Franken trolling on FR! He's good enough, he's smart enough, and dog gone it, people like him!
Concerning your snarky little DU comment; Google my Freeper handle along with Willie Green and Dane. I don't suffer liberal trolls; but you've already seen that.
One more thing, if you possessed half the intellectual prowess you claim, you'd have no need to crow about it on an anonymous message board. You sound like the geeky little boy with personal hygiene issues who claims to have had his way with the prom queen. We see you for what you are and you impress no one.
You said you were "bored" and you would go away. Please keep your word and go away.
So is calling a servant of satan a Christian.
Nor should their be.
Isaiah ch 11 1Out of the stump of David’s family£ will grow a shoot—yes, a new Branch bearing fruit from the old root. 2And the Spirit of the LORD will rest on him—the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD. 3He will delight in obeying the LORD. He will never judge by appearance, false evidence, or hearsay. 4He will defend the poor and the exploited. He will rule against the wicked and destroy them with the breath of his mouth. 5He will be clothed with fairness and truth.
Mary's genealogy is found in Luke ch 3. 32David was the son of Jesse. Jesse was the son of Obed.
Mary had to be born of man of the line of Jesse for prophecy to be fulfilled. Luke's listing of genealogy is Mary's as Luke was a physician and used the maternal records. Matthew was a tax collector and kept the father {head of house} genealogy meaning Joseph.
It sounds conflicting to some folks but Joseph Mary's husband would be called {considered as} Mary's fathers son when he married her. Both mary and Joseph trace to Jesse but Christ is the Son Of GOD. Mary's line is the one from which Christ came in prophecy. The mothers line made one a Jew not the fathers. An example being the Apostle Paul who was both Jewish and Roman. Jewish by Jewish Law through his mom and Roman by Roman Law by his dad.
The only idiots that keep mentioning the Inquisition are the antiCatholics.
LOL!!
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
Oh well, it isn’t like I didn’t try.
‘Night.
Once again, you are completely wrong about things. I cannot believe that you have gotten so many things wrong in your posts. You are very entertaining.
Didn’t the pope say the muslims and Catholics serve the same God?
SFA, you're overreacting. Reread my post. I said that Mary's DNA was present in the ovum.
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.